Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 13, 2022 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside COMMISSIONERS Chair — V. Manuel Perez Vice Chair— Bob Magee Second Vice Chair— Lloyd White Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1 Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2 Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3 V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4 Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5 Mary Hamlin / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning Lloyd White / David Fenn, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa Jeremy Smith / Larry Greene, City of Canyon Lake Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, City of Coachella Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Malcolm Lilienthal, City of Hemet Dana Reed / Donna Griffith, City of Indian Wells Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio Brian Berkson / Guillermo Silva, City ofJurupa Valley Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee Yxstian Gutierrez / Edward Delgado, City of Moreno Valley Lisa DeForest / Cindy Warren, City of Murrieta Ted Hoffman / Katherine Aleman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage Chuck Conder / Patricia Lock Dawson, City of Riverside Michael Heath / Alonso Ledezma, City of San Jacinto Maryann Edwards / Zak Schwank, City of Temecula Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar To Be Appointed, Governor's Appointee Caltrans District 8 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org MEETING AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2022 Board Room County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting 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 Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three -minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING — COACHELLA VALLEY -SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE PROGRAM — CERTIFICATION OF FINAL TIER 1/PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program and matters relating to the Program's compliance with CEQA, including the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Program, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-015 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, Adopting Findings of Fact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Program". 7. 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. 7A. AB 361 DETERMINATION Page 170 Overview This item is for the Commission to Reaffirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, "A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Virtual Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361." The findings are as follows: a. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exist today; and b. State or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing. 7B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 8, 2022 Page 175 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022 Page 3 7C. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 2023 REGIONAL PROGRAM GUIDELINES — SELECTION CRITERIA FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPLICATIONS Page 196 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the project selection criteria for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6; and 2) Authorize staff to award projects based on the approved selection criteria for the MPO funding. 7D. QUARTERLY REPORTING OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Report of Contract Change Orders for Construction Contracts for the three months ended March 31, 2022. 7E. 2022 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Page 202 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2022 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. Page 200 7F. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Page 250 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 22-31-057-00 with Psomas for the on -call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term for an amount not to exceed $750,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders under the terms of the agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022 Page 4 7G. SURPLUS DECLARATION OF REAL PROPERTY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 313 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-012 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that Certain Real Property Owned by the Commission located at assessor parcel numbers 102-091-027, a portion of 102-091-030, and a portion of certain right-of-way area, located between Serfas Club Drive and Frontage Road near Corona, California, is Non -Exempt Surplus Land, Approving the Form of Notice of Availability Therefore, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA Review"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-013 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that Certain Real Property Owned by the Commission located at a portion of 219-094-014, located near Cridge Street in the City of Riverside, California, is Exempt Surplus Land Therefore, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA Review"; and 3) If no response for the non-exempt surplus property is received from public agencies, developers, and/or contiguous landowners, authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public. 7H. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 337 1) Award Agreement No. 22-31-068-00 with Dudek for the on -call right of way environmental site assessment services for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed $350,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultant under the terms of the agreement. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022 Page 5 71. FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW OPERATOR FUEL RELIEF REIMBURSEMENT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 421 1) Authorize one-time payment as fuel relief reimbursement to Pepe's Towing for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beats 4, 7, 8 for a total amount of $6,270 for the months of March through June 2022; 2) Approve Agreement No. 18-45-132-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-45-132-00, with Coastal Pride Towing for continued FSP services on Beats 20, 34, 35 for an additional amount of $187,400 for fuel relief reimbursement, including a one-time reimbursement for the months of March through June 2022 and ongoing monthly reimbursements through the term of the agreement ending August 29, 2023, for a total amount not to exceed $2,652,356; 3) Approve Agreement No. 17-45-061-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 17-45-061-00, with Pepe's Towing for continued FSP services on Beats 18, 19 for an additional amount of $24,750 for fuel relief reimbursement, including a one- time reimbursement for the months of March through June 2022 and ongoing monthly reimbursements through the term of the agreement ending September 30, 2022, for a total amount not to exceed $4,308,922; 4) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-103-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 16-45-103-00, with Steve's Towing for continued FSP services on the express lanes for an additional $47,900 for fuel relief reimbursement, including a one-time reimbursement for the months of March through June 2022 and ongoing monthly reimbursements through the term of the agreement ending January 31, 2023, or a total amount not to exceed $2,216,097; and 5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7J. FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for Fiscal Year 2020/21. Page 436 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022 Page 6 7K. INTERSTATE 15 CROSS -COUNTY TOLL SEGMENT WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 444 1) Approve the Interstate 15 Terms of Agreement with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), outlining SBCTA will build and operate the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment within Riverside County, including schedule of payments summarizing annual toll revenue transfers to the Commission; 2) Authorize staff to proceed with developing a cooperative agreement with SBCTA detailing material project terms during design and construction phases, and operations for the proposed 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment; 3) Authorize staff to proceed with initiating the due diligence process with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (US DOT) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) office to review and approve both the toll revenue transfers and sub -lease approach with SBCTA; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to negotiate and execute sole - source contract amendments, as it is in the best interest for both the public and Commission to conduct a non-competitive procurement, as follows: i. Amend the 1-15 Express Lanes contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) as the project/construction management (PCM) in the amount of $1,534,912 (Agreement No. 15-31-001-10) for design support, cooperative agreement development, construction support, finance support and tolling interface coordination; ii. Amend the 1-15 Express Lanes contract with Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc. (Kapsch) as the Toll Service Provider (TSP) in the estimated amount of $50,000 to provide design reviews to assess impacts to the existing tolling system; 5) Approve Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Amendment with $593,300 in Local Reimbursements for consultant costs associated with the delivery and coordination of the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment to be reimbursed by SBCTA; 6) Authorize the pursuit of approximately $8 million in Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for design and construction phase costs for express lane access improvements near Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road for the 1-15 Cross - County Toll Segment; and 7) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute all necessary agency agreements or amendments to existing agency agreements for TIFIA due diligence and for SBCTA to operate the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment within Riverside County. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022 Page 7 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 474 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 9. MEETING FORMAT OPTIONS Page 486 Overview This item is for the Commission to provide direction regarding approach to future meetings. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 12. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Overview This item provides the opportunity for brief announcements or comments on items or matters of general interest. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One potential case 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2022. AGENDA ITEM 6 PUBLIC HEARING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program — Certification of Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approval of Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program and matters relating to the Program's compliance with CEQA, including the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Program, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-015 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, Adopting Findings of Fact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Program". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of their mission to provide a safe, efficient, cost-effective transportation system, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Rail and Mass Transportation, and the Commission have been studying ways to meet commuter and intercity travel needs and enhance travel opportunities within Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Statewide and regional transportation planning efforts undertaken from 1991 to 2016 have recommended implementing passenger rail service to add travel capacity to what highways already provide. For this reason, FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission have studied passenger rail service options between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles and the city of Coachella to provide more travel choices in the 144 -mile -long Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Agenda Item 6 1 Corridor (Program Corridor). The Program Corridor, which connects the Los Angeles metropolitan area with the Coachella Valley through the San Gorgonio Pass, currently has no daily intercity passenger rail service. The proposed implementation of intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor, including the planning and construction of rail infrastructure improvements required to establish the service, are collectively known as the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program (Program). 1 FRA and Caltrans are the joint lead agencies for the environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Commission is the lead agency under CEQA. The FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission have prepared a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR in compliance with: • NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] Section 4321, et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); • CEQA (California Public Resource Code [PRC], Section 21000, et seq.); • California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 Sections 15000-15387; • FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545, May 26, 1999); and • 23 United States Code Section 139 The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR was preceded by several years of preliminary Program development activities. In 1991, the Commission completed the first in a series of studies evaluating the feasibility of operating one or two daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Los Angeles and Indio. From 1991 to 2013, the Commission completed additional feasibility studies on the Program Corridor. In July 2016, the Commission, in coordination with Caltrans and FRA, prepared and completed the 2016 Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report that evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives for implementation of daily intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Indio. The purpose of the 2016 AA Report was to identify a reasonable range of preliminary alternative(s) that could be evaluated in a subsequent Service Development Plan (SDP) and in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Program Overview The Program Corridor runs west to east, extending from a western terminus at LAUS to an eastern terminus in either the city of Indio or city of Coachella and consists of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section (Figure 1). The boundary between the Western and Eastern Sections is in the city of Colton, at the intersection of existing railroad lines owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and BNSF Railways. For CEQA purposes, this is the proposed Project. Agenda Item 6 2 Figure 1: Map of Proposed Coachella Valley — San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Proposed Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Rail Service 1a Montclair�yj r m Mahtlat 1I na to Fontana Colton y ) -----,'-'''-f N� Pnoarhead Ronnmg 4 san Rwnvdim '''''''99 s NfaiM:t3v.. C iJ 1. Maran�Lr3' aPones Vallay i(•, `Socafpa '47 aKmvauer SAN GORGONIO PASS � ' Rannm. Loma Linda Moreno Valley Pas Area a 1 nrern lto, arse, Cab ton ��•�- .+t Palm Spring , C.thedt.d(Ilt Rancho Mlran Palm 0e LEGEND - Preferred Route • - Existing Station - Potential Station Area — thousand Pam, Mid Valley Indian Wells La Oglnu Coac COACHELLA VALLEY Indio ate_ Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of two daily round trip intercity passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the cities of Indio or Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from each end of the Program Corridor. The Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluated the No Build Alternative and three potential Build Alternative Options (Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2, and Build Alternative Option 3), developed to a level of detail appropriate for a Tier 1/Program service -level evaluation. No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative consists of the continuation of the existing Amtrak passenger train route, stations, and service within the Program Corridor. The No Build Alternative also includes all committed improvements (i.e., projects with dedicated or obligated funding) to the existing intercity passenger rail system, the highway/freeway system, and other modes of transportation available to the public (e.g. intercity bus services and aviation services) within the Program Corridor. Build Alternative Option 1: Build Alternative Option 1 assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the city of Coachella. As shown in Figure 2, no additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required within the Western Section of the Program Corridor and existing stations in Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. As shown in Figure 3, within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be improved and utilized, and up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley Area, the city of Indio, and the city of Coachella. A third main line track and associated infrastructure would augment the existing two main tracks along the entire Eastern Section of the Program Corridor from Colton to Coachella. Agenda Item 6 3 Figure 2. Map of Western Section - Build Alternative Option 1 (Selected Alternative), Build Alternative Option 2, and Build Alternative Option 3. Ange Glea ale e.,__ Pasadena Los Angeles Union Mon 'Station ,4 Vernon merce Walhut Park Compton Carson - -- 0 'Rosemead Balt7win Park Covina West Covina Valinda La Puente Walnut a LOS ANGELES Rowla `Whittier COUNTY Heig Habra a Brea La Mirada Palma Cypres tanton San Dimas CI - La Veme \\o `omona 11 /, Placentia Yorba Linda Fullerton Station Los Alamitos �a Orange Long Beach, Rossmoor Garden Groff �— sr mac llJ) al Beach Santa Ana Miles 5 Tustin �� (� 0 tclair Chino `\, WESTERN SECTION 600 -foot Study Area from either side of 1-1 the railroad centerline +++— Existing BNSF Railroad O Existing Stations Utilized for Proposed Rail Service 'No construction. no new stations Rancho Cucamonga) \`fir Fontana San a Bloomington ntarto I SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Grand Mira Lorna - - Terrace ti rdtno RIVERSIDE COUNTY Norco Home Gardens Riverside Loma Linda Riverside Station Woodcrest Agenda Item 6 4 Figure 3. Map of Eastern Section - Selected Alternative: Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus) a Highland aSan Bemardino Colton lomati )a N,0 Redlands Loma Linda Terrace Pe Mentone _ Yucaipa San Bemardino National Forest SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY EASTERN SECTION 5 New Potential Station Areas (with 6 Q stations)- 1,500 -foot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline nNon -Station Areas. 800 -foot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline Existing Union Pacific Railroad O Existing Stations Utilized for Proposed Rail G -=;.ca Moreno Valley e Sun City r Canyon Lake \ Lake Elsinore Catbnese Cherry Valley RIVERSIDE COUNTY fHat rj 1' tf Banning Pass Area 1, yan Gorgonio Pas, Beaumont San Jacinto Hemet Valle Vista \ Miles 0 Cabazon San Bernardino National Forest Springs Station Paint Springs Cathed I City Desert Hot Springs Co d t, 'a lee Thousand Palms Agua Cali le Casino "� y Joshua Tree National Park Rancho Mirage Santa Rosa -San Mountains National Monumnent i Palm Desert Indio Coachella .: Build Alternative Option 2: Build Alternative Option 2 assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the city of Indio. As shown in Figure 2, no additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required within the Western Section of the Program Corridor and existing stations in Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. As shown in Figure 4, within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be improved and utilized, and up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley Area, and the city of Indio. A third main line track and associated infrastructure would augment the existing two main tracks along the entire Eastern Section of the Program Corridor from Colton to Indio. Agenda Item 6 5 Figure 4. Map of Eastern Section - Build Alternative Options 2 (3rd Track to Indio) and Option 3 (3rd Track to Mid Valley Station Area) - -Highland Aq San Bemardino Coition(oma Mentone_. 4toa a%Qo Redlands aia Loma Linda Terrace Yucaipa San Bemardino i National Forest SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY EASTERN SECTION lin 4 New Potential Station Areas (with 5 stations): 1,500 -foot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline 0 Non -Station Areas: 800 -foot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline -+-� Existing Union Pacific Railroad O Existing Stations Utilized for Proposed Rail Service 4 Moreno Valley AA Perr�s� Sun City Carryon Lake Lake Elsinore r Miles Celanese Cherry Valley RIVERSIDE COUNTY Banning Pzss Area Beaumont \San Jacinto Hemet Valle Vista Cabazon San Bernardino ``\l NationalForest Sptings Slat on Patin Springs Cathedr>bl City Ague Cali Casino Desert Hot Springs co °C4,/,0 a a Thousand Palm Rancho Mirage Santa Rosa -San Jacinto Palm Desert Mountains National _ Monumnent r Joshua Tree National Park Build Alternative Option 3 terminus of 31d Track 0 , Coachella Build Alternative Option 2 terminus of 3rd Track Build Alternative Option 3: Build Alternative Option 3 assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the city of Indio. As shown in Figure 2, no additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required within the Western Section of the Program Corridor and existing stations in Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. As shown in Figure 4, within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be improved and utilized, and up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley Area, and the city of Indio. A third main line track and associated infrastructure would augment the existing two main tracks along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor from Colton to the proposed Mid -Valley Station Area. The Build Alternative Options would provide improved passenger rail service to meet future intercity travel demand, improve rail facilities, reduce journey times, and improve connections with regional public transit services. As noted above, Build Alternative Option 1, which is also the NEPA/CEQA Selected Alternative for FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission, includes a total Program Corridor distance of 144 miles and consists of a Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating in the city of Coachella, the details of which are as follows: Agenda Item 6 6 Western Section - Under Build Alternative Option 1, existing rail infrastructure would be used in the Western Section of the Program Corridor, and no additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required. LAUS would serve as the western terminus, while existing stations in the cities of Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized to support the proposed passenger rail service. No new stations or improvements to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. Eastern Section - Under Build Alternative Option 1, potential new infrastructure improvements on the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade -separation structures, and station facilities to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. As part of the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, rail operations simulation modeling was conducted to identify potential infrastructure needs. Upon completion of the SDP and the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, the specific infrastructure improvements would be determined and refined through coordination and additional consultations with UPRR, the Commission, Caltrans, and FRA prior to Tier 2/Project-level analysis (Figure 3).2 Potential rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities could include: • Up to five new stations; • A third main line track to augment the existing two -track main line along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to Coachella; • Various crossovers connecting the existing main line tracks to the new third main line track; • A new second Mt. Vernon connector track in Colton; • A new siding at Loma Linda to allow passenger trains to meet, reducing delay; • A new railroad bridge across the Santa Ana River; and • Additional infrastructure components throughout the Program Corridor including, but not limited to, wayside signals, drainage structures, and grade -separation structures. Under Build Alternative Option 1, the proposed passenger rail services within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would use the existing station in the city of Palm Springs. Additionally, up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid -Valley Area (serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the city of Indio, and 5) the city of Coachella as the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. 2 The Tier 2/Project-level process does not automatically follow the Tier 1/Program process, rather a project would be defined based on the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR broad project scope and funded at that time. The Tier 2/Project-level process would be a separate environmental document and could be funded and led by an agency other than the FRA and the Commission, depending upon the source of funding. Agenda Item 6 7 Draft Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report The Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for the Program was distributed for public review from May 21, 2021, through July 6, 2021, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500- 1508), FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15000 to 15387. Comments that were received throughout the 45 -day public comment period included comments from public agencies, organizations, and individuals. FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission received a total of 297 comment submissions during the 45 -day public comment period, of which nine were from public agencies, 15 from private organizations, and 255 from individuals. FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission received an additional 18 verbal comment submissions during public hearings on June 22 and June 26, 2021. FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission received 10 comment letters after the close of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR public comment period (i.e., after July 6, 2021); however, late comments were included in the response to comments as a courtesy. FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission scheduled and hosted two virtual public hearings in order to explain the Program and the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation. The virtual public hearings for the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR occurred on June 22, 2021, and June 26, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., respectively. All public responses were appreciated and will help to develop a more well balanced Program. Of the 307 comment submissions received, approximately 82 percent were generally supportive of the Program. Many of the comments received were on the same topic or expressed similar concerns. Rather than repeat the same response to each of those comments, several "Master Responses" were prepared, each of which addresses broad topic areas and/or comment themes. If a Master Response was used to respond to an individual's comment, the commenter is directed to that Master Response. The following Master Responses were developed based on the volume of comment submissions received on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. • Proposed Station Locations • Conceptual Nature of Build Alternative Option Components • Freight Train Volume Assumptions • Noise Quiet Zones • Program Implementation • Train Trip Frequency • Train Trip Duration • Program Funding • Program Timing • Transit Connections • Locomotive Technology • Environmental Justice Agenda Item 6 8 Based on the receipt, review, and response to comments received on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, none of the comments received provides new information that warrants recirculation of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR under CEQA nor preparation of a supplement under NEPA. In the context of the CEQA analysis, the comments do not identify new impacts that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts and do not include feasible Program alternatives or mitigation strategies that are considerably different from those provided in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are appropriate for a Tier 1/Program-level document. Although several comments raised concerns regarding the proposed Program's impacts, including: a) potential for increases in freight rail traffic, b) proposed train trip frequency and train trip travel time, and c) specific environmental issues (i.e., noise and vibration, environmental justice, biological resources), the information contained in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIS and clarified as part of the response to comments effort sufficiently addresses these comments. Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1503.4(a) and 23 CFR Part 771.125, NEPA, and pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088(c), the lead agencies prepared responses to the comments submitted on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. These responses were issued with the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research on June 9, 2022 (SCH# 2016101017) and published with the Federal Register on June 17, 2022 (FR Docket No. FRL OP-OFA-020). Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report The primary purpose of the combined Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR was to provide an overview of the Tier 1/Program process, identify the alternatives considered by the lead agencies prior to coming to a decision, and provide substantive responses to those comments received during the public comment period (May 21, 2021 to July 6, 2021). The combined ROD and Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR contains the Tier 1/Program FEIS/EIR (Part 1), the Tier 1 ROD (Part 2), and the following Tier 1/Program FEIS/EIR appendices: • Appendix A: Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and Appendices • Appendix B: Public Outreach Summary Report • Appendix C: Copies of all correspondence (including letters and emails) received from Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, and the public during the Tier 1/Program DEIS/EIR public and agency comment period. • Appendix D: Response to Comments on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR provided in a comments and responses matrix. • Appendix E: CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Agenda Item 6 9 As stated above, on June 9, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Availability for the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research as well as notification to various Project stakeholder contact databases, including those who commented on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Copies of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR were also made available at the various public repositories throughout the Program Corridor. FRA also issued a ROD for the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and published the notice of FRA's approval of the Program with the Federal Register on June 17, 2022. Following publication of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Selected Alternative will be refined through additional planning and design to identify the appropriate implementation structure for the Program. Implementation options are expected to continue at the state and regional level with involvement from several regional agencies, local jurisdictions, key transportation stakeholders (e.g., Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), Amtrak, UPRR and BNSF Railways), and the public. Implementation of the Selected Alternative, will depend on stakeholder feedback, availability of funding, and be informed by additional planning and design. The Program may be implemented in phases building off the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. If implementation of the Selected Alternative requires a Federal, state, or local agency to make a decision on proposed actions, including providing permits; financing, assisting, conducting, or approving projects or programs; issuing agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures; and making land management decisions, additional Tier 2/Project-level studies may be required for NEPA and CEQA clearance. These Tier 2/Project-level studies will be conducted in coordination with the applicable Federal, state, and local agency/agencies. The Commission's Role as a Lead Agency In the environmental process, the Program is considered a joint undertaking by FRA, Caltrans and the Commission and is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Program documentation has been prepared in compliance with both NEPA and CEQA (as described above). FRA and Caltrans are the joint lead agencies under NEPA and the Commission is the lead agency under CEQA. The Commission is the lead agency for the Program under CEQA. Before the Commission may approve the Program, it must (1) make certain findings regarding the Program's potential significant impacts under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, (2) adopt a statement of overriding considerations that details how the Program's specific benefits outweigh its environmental impacts under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093; and (3) adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to mitigate or avoid the Program's potentially significant impacts on the environment under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1). The CEQA Findings of Fact required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and the statement of overriding considerations under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 are both included as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 22-105. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Program is included as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 22-105. Moreover, in reviewing the Final Tier 1/Program Agenda Item 6 10 EIS/EIR, the Commission must independently reach its conclusion on whether and how to approve the Program. The item before the Commission is to consider whether to certify the EIR and approve the Program in the Commission's role as CEQA lead agency. Staff and the Commission's consultant team led the preparation of the environmental document in close coordination with FRA and Caltrans. Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 22-015 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, Adopting Findings of Fact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Program." Based on the analysis and substantial evidence set forth in the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, and all other evidence in the administrative record, the facts and findings contained in the Attachment 1 Resolution No. 22-015, staff recommends the Commission adopt the resolution to: 1) Certify the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR; 2) Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3) Adopt the CEQA Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 4) Approve the Program; and 5) Authorize the filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination. Attachments: 1) Resolution No 22-015 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, Adopting Findings of Fact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Program." 2) Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for the Coachella Valley — San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Report (click on the link): https://www.rctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CV-Rail- Final-EIR-with-Appendices-A-E.pdf 3) Public comments received between June 14 and July 6, 2022 Agenda Item 6 11 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-015 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL TIER 1/PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY -SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE PROGRAM, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND APPROVING THE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), has been working to develop the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program (Project), which seeks to improve and provide passenger rail service between Los Angeles Union Station and the Coachella Valley; and WHEREAS, the Commission is the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the FRA and Caltrans are the lead agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and WHEREAS, the FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission utilized a tiered environmental process for the Project, which is a phased approach to environmental review used in the development of complex projects (as provided in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.28 and 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15152); and WHEREAS, the tiered NEPA/CEQA review and decision -making process allows for a broad -level programmatic decision with a first -tier EIS and a programmatic EIR, which will be followed by more specific analyses and decisions through one or more second -tier NEPA/CEQA evaluations, as applicable, in the future; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation for a Joint Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) /Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) for the Project was issued on or about October 6, 2016; and WHEREAS, EIS/EIR Scoping Meetings were held on October 12, 2016, October 13, 2016 and October 17, 2016 to solicit input and receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2016101017) was prepared for agency and public review, and the Draft EIS/EIR was circulated for public comment from May 21, 2021 through July 6, 2021; and 12 WHEREAS, FRA, Caltrans, and the Commission hosted two virtual public hearings to explain the Program and the Draft EIS/EIR, and these hearings were heldon June 22, 2021 and June 26, 2021; and WHEREAS, over three -hundred (300) comment submissions were received on the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR; and WHEREAS, the Commission, FRA, and Caltrans have evaluated the comments regarding the Draft EIS/EIR that have been received from agencies, organizations, and individuals, and responses to these comments have been prepared; and WHEREAS, a Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR), incorporating responses to comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, was issued on June 9, 2022; and WHEREAS, the complete Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR consists of the May 2021 Draft EIS/EIR, all technical studies and appendices prepared in connection with the Draft EIS/EIR, comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR, responses to those comments, a CEQA Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the Final EIS/EIR; and WHEREAS, the Tier 1/Program Final EIS/EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative for the Project outlined in the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, also known as Build Alternative Option 1, would provide intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles and the City of Coachella to provide more travel choices in the 144 -mile -long Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (Program Corridor); and WHEREAS, in June 2022, FRA, as the NEPA lead agency, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the Commission, FRA, and Caltrans provided copies of responses to timely commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days before the Commission's July 13, 2022 hearing regarding the Tier 1/Program Final EIS/EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2022, the Commission conducted a duly -noticed public hearing for the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and the Project; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the Commission in connection with the preparation of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, as well as feasible alternatives and mitigation measures, have been adequately evaluated; and 13 WHEREAS, the findings and conclusions made by the Commission in this Resolution are based not only on the information provided in this Resolution, but also on the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared (a) CEQA Findings of Fact under State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and a Statement of Overriding Considerations under State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, and (b) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR as Appendix E and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Draft EIS/EIR, Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all oral and written evidence presented to the Commission during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Commission and no additional information submitted to the Commission have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact. Section 2. Compliance with the Environmental Quality Act. As lead agency for the Project under CEQA, the Commission has reviewed and considered the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2016101017), along with all oral and written comments received and the administrative record (the Record). The Commission hereby finds and determines that the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that it contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts of the Project as a whole. The Commission hereby further finds and determines that the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Commission further finds and determines that the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. 14 Section 3. Certification of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The Commission hereby certifies the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR prepared for the Project. The Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 4. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the Record, the Commission hereby adopts CEQA Findings of Fact under State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and a Statement of Overriding Considerations under State CEQA Guidelines section 15093. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 5. Approval of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is attached to the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR as Appendix E and incorporated herein by this reference. To the extent there is any conflict between the MMRP, the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, or the Findings of Fact, the terms and provisions of the MMRP shall control. Section 6. Approval of Project. The Commission hereby approves the Preferred Alternative outlined in the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, also known as Build Alternative Option 1. Section 6. Notice of Determination. The Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and San Bernardino County Clerk's Office within five (5) working days of adoption of this Resolution. Section 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution and the above findings have been based are located at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92502. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July, 2022. V. Manuel Perez, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 15 Exhibit A to Resolution No. 22-015 �tailfrans U S Deportment of Tronspol•tation `/ Federal Railroad Administration 151 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS►ORTAIIO% COMMISSION COACHELLA VALLEY - SAN GORGONIO PASS \/-\fir --. u u-W•� r-UW V ■-- Program Environmental Document and Service Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program June 2022 16 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page is intentionally blank. Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Program Summary 6 2.1 Description of the Program Proposed for Approval 6 2.2 Program Purpose and Objectives 6 2.3 Program Need 7 3 Procedural Findings 10 4 Independent Judgement and Finding 12 4.1 Findings Regarding Less than Significant Impacts where No Mitigation is Required 12 4.1.1 Aesthetics 12 4.1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 13 4.1.3 Air Quality 14 4.1.4 Cultural Resources 15 4.1.5 Energy 15 4.1.6 Geology and Soils 16 4.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 16 4.1.8 Utilities and Service Systems 17 4.2 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level that is Less than Significant 18 4.2.1 Biological Resources 19 4.2.2 Energy 23 4.2.3 Geology and Soils 26 4.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 36 4.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 39 4.2.6 Hydrology and Water Quality 51 4.2.7 Noise and Vibration 60 4.2.8 Population and Housing 63 4.2.9 Recreation 65 4.2.10 Transportation 66 4.2.11 Utilities and Service Systems 72 4.2.12 Wildfire 74 4.3 Findings Regarding Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level that is Less than Significant 79 4.3.1 Aesthetics 79 4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 83 18 June 2022 1 i Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.3.3 Air Quality 86 4.3.4 Biological Resources 90 4.3.5 Cultural Resources 102 4.3.6 Geology and Soils 105 4.3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 107 4.3.8 Land Use and Planning 110 4.3.9 Mineral Resources 113 4.3.10 Noise 114 4.3.11 Public Services 117 4.3.12 Recreation 118 4.3.13 Transportation 119 4.3.14 Tribal Cultural Resources 121 4.3.15 Utilities and Service Systems 125 4.4 The Use of a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 128 4.5 Findings of Fact 130 4.6 Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts for which Mitigation is Outside RCTC's Responsibility or Jurisdiction 130 4.7 Findings Related to the Relationship Between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 131 4.8 Summary of Alternatives Considered 132 4.9 Growth Inducement 139 4.10 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 141 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations 144 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 147 7 Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents 149 19 June 2022 1 ii Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Abbreviations/Acronyms ACS American Community Survey CEQA California Environmental Quality Act EIR environmental impact report EIS environmental impact statement FRA Federal Railroad Administration LAUS Los Angeles Union Station NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Program Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Service Program Program Corridor Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROW right-of-way SDP Service Development Plan U.S. United States Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 20 June 2022 1 iii Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment. The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. There are three possible finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to Section 15091 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings. Where a project will cause unavoidable significant impacts, the Lead Agency may still approve a project if its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further, as provided in Section 5, Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced against effects, and approves the project. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), as the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the proposed Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program (Program) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) State Clearinghouse No. 2016101017 has been 21 June 2022 1 4 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. RCTC finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the proposed Program. Based upon its review of the EIR, the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Program, represents the independent judgment of RCTC, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this Program. 22 June 2022 1 5 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 Program Summary 2.1 Description of the Program Proposed for Approval FRA's, Caltrans', and RCTC's Preferred Alternative is Build Alternative Option 1. The Preferred Alternative consists of the existing route traveled by Amtrak Sunset Limited trains between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. As identified in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) would serve as the western terminus while existing stations in the cities of Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized to support the proposed passenger rail service. No new stations or improvements to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. In addition, existing rail infrastructure would be used in the Western Section of the Program Corridor and no additional railroad infrastructure would be required in the Western Section. Under the Preferred Alternative, potential new infrastructure improvements on the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade -separation structures, and station facilities to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. In addition, the proposed passenger rail services within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs and up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid -Valley Area (serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the City of Indio, and 5) the City of Coachella as the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. 2.2 Program Purpose and Objectives As identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR pg. 1-7), the Program's Purpose is to implement a safe, reliable, and convenient intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor with the capability to meet the future mobility needs of residents, businesses, and visitors and meet the following objectives: 1. Provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with a public transportation service that offers more convenient, reliable, and competitive trip times, better station access, and more frequency than currently available public transportation services 2. Provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules 23 June 2022 1 6 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3. Provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an affordable transportation service 4. Serve a range of trip purposes traveling between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley, particularly including business and personal trips 5. Improve regional travel opportunities between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley for individuals without private vehicles 6. Serve the expected population growth in the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley 7. Assist regional agencies in meeting air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets as mandated in state and federal regulations 2.3 Program Need The Program is needed to address the absence of effective transportation alternatives to personal automobile travel between coastal regions of Southern California (e.g., Los Angeles and Orange Counties) and cities in the Inland Empire (e.g., City of Riverside) and the Coachella Valley (e.g., Cities of Coachella, Indio, Palm Springs), the projected increase in travel demand in the Program Corridor resulting from population and employment growth, and the increasing unreliability of existing transportation systems within the Program Corridor. As identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR pg. 1-8), the Program Corridor currently faces substantial mobility challenges that are likely to continue. Based on population and travel forecasts, as well as the amount of available open land within the Program Corridor, population, employment, and tourism activity is expected to continue to grow in the future; however, opportunities to increase the carrying capacity of the region's roadway network are limited. The two primary transportation and mobility challenges within the Program Corridor include the following: 1. For interregional travel between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley, travelers are required to drive through Interstate (I) 10 through the San Gorgonio Pass. There are limited public transportation options; therefore, people who cannot afford to own and operate a private vehicle, or choose not to, have limited ability to travel between the regions, and people who might prefer not to drive do not have a viable alternative. The lack of available transportation options leaves the Program Corridor underserved, yet travel demand is expected to increase in the future. 24 June 2022 1 7 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Congested highway conditions in the Los Angeles Basin cause delays and highway travel unreliability for longer distance corridor driving trips. Emergency closures of 110 through San Gorgonio Pass further undermine the reliability of the Program Corridor's transportation system. Future growth will result in more congestion and even longer travel times, causing more highway travel unreliability; thus, driving is an increasingly unattractive and inconvenient mode of travel through the Program Corridor. 25 June 2022 1 8 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page is intentionally blank. 26 June 2022 1 9 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 Procedural Findings Based on the nature and scope of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, RCTC determined, based on substantial evidence, that the Program may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared a Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2016101017, in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Railroad Agency (FRA). The Program EIR was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with CEQA (PRC Sections 2100 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 1500 et. seq.), as follows: • Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, RCTC circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") to State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30 -day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on October 6, 2016. A notice advising of the availability of the NOP was posted by the Los Angeles County Clerk, Orange County Clerk, San Bernardino County Clerk, and Riverside County Clerk. In addition, three scoping meetings were held at three locations (Indio, Riverside, and Los Angeles) during the NOP comment period to educate the public on the purposed and need for the Program, share the history of the Program, outline the Program benefits, highlight the Program elements, explain next steps, and gather public comments pursuant to the requirements of Section 15082(c)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. • RCTC circulated the Draft Program EIR from May 21, 2021 to July 6, 2021. A notice advising of the availability of the Draft Program EIR was posted by Los Angeles County Clerk, Orange County Clerk, San Bernardino County Clerk, and Riverside County Clerk. The Notice of Availability of the Draft Program EIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on May 21, 2021. • A total of 279 comment letters were received during the 45 -day public comment period. An additional 18 verbal comments were received during public hearings conducted on June 22 and June 26, 2021. Ten comment letters were received after the close of the public comment period (i.e., after July 6, 2021). Responses to these ten comment letters received after the close of the public comment period are included as a courtesy. RCTC prepared responses to all written and verbal comments. The comments and responses are contained in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively, of the Final Program EIR. 27 June 2022 1 10 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • In accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21092.5, RCTC has provided a written proposed response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to the proposed certification date of the Final EIR. 28 June 2022 1 11 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 Independent Judgement and Finding RCTC is the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR, as defined by CEQA PRC Section 21067 as amended. RCTC's Board of Commissioners has received and reviewed the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Program. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. 4.1 Findings Regarding Less than Significant Impacts where No Mitigation is Required Consistent with PRC Section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, RCTC's Board of Commissioners hereby finds that the Program would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource topics: 4.1.1 Aesthetics Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Findings: No impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.4-30 through 3.4-31) Explanation: There are no designated scenic highways within the Program Corridor. Therefore, construction and operation of the Program would not damage or obstruct any scenic resource (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.4-5 through 3.4-6). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-30 and 3.4-31). 29 June 2022 1 12 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Forestland Zoning Threshold: Would the Program conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Findings: No impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.2-42) Explanation: There are no forest lands (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) within the Program Corridor. Therefore, construction and operation of the Program would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-24). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-42). Loss of Forest Land Threshold: Would the Program result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Findings: No impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-43) Explanation: There are no forest lands (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) within the Program Corridor. Therefore, construction and operation of the Program would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-24). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-43). 30 June 2022 1 13 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.1.3 Air Quality Air Quality Management Plan Consistency Threshold: Would the Program conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-17 through 3.5-25) Explanation: The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air through various measures, such as trip reduction strategies, vehicle substitution, VMT reduction, and technological improvements. While construction activities may generate localized air quality emissions, construction of the Program would result in the operation of an enhanced passenger rail system. Operation of an enhanced passenger rail system within the Program Corridor would reduce VMTs within the region, which would have a corresponding reduction in air quality emissions generated. Since the Program would improve regional air quality through VMT reductions and technological improvements, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-17 through 3.5-19). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-33). Odors Threshold: Would the Program result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-17 through 3.5-25) Explanation: Construction activities may generate odors from construction equipment and vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust). However, these impacts would be short term and limited in extent at any given time and range. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Operation of the Program would generate odors from the operation of the additional passenger rail trains and the continued operation of the existing station facilities. However, these types of uses and generation of odors already occur within the Program Corridor. The types of uses are not within a category of land uses that are associated with objectionable odors (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.5-25). Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not result in significant impacts pertaining to other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-38). 31 June 2022 1 14 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.1.4 Cultural Resources Human Remains Threshold: Would the Program disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.13-50) Explanation: The potential for the inadvertent discovery of human remains during construction ground disturbing activities exists. However, implementation of requirements and procedures contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Section 7052 and PRC Section 5097 would reduce these potential impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, any potential disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, during Program construction and operation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-59 and 3.13-60). 4.1.5 Energy Conflict with Energy Plans Threshold: Would the Program conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Findings: No impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-50 and 3.12-51) Explanation: Overall, the Build Alternative Options are expected to result in energy savings relative to the No Build Alternative because the primary source of energy consumption for the Program (i.e., train propulsion) is more efficient than personal single occupancy vehicles. In the Western Section, existing infrastructure and stations would be utilized, so energy savings would be greatest in this section. In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, new rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities would be constructed and operated, resulting in additional increases in energy consumption. As such, energy consumption in the Eastern Section would be higher than in the Western Section, and the net savings would be lower (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-38). However, implementation of the Program would support state and local plans for energy efficiency (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-51) by reducing VMT (and associated fuel consumption) through shifting travel modes within the Program Corridor from automobiles to passenger rail. For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program 32 June 2022 1 15 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-50 and 3.12-51). 4.1.6 Geology and Soils Septic Tanks Threshold: Would the Program have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Findings: No impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-72 and 3.10-73) Explanation: During construction activities, the contractor would provide portable toilets on site, which would then be removed from the site on a regular basis for off -site servicing at an approved wastewater handling facility. Therefore, the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems is not anticipated during construction (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-72 and 3.10-73). During operation, the increase in train service (two additional round trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land uses such that the need for alternative wastewater disposal systems would be warranted. The operation of maintenance and station facilities would generate wastewater; however, it is anticipated that these facilities would be connected to the local wastewater facility system and not to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-72 and 3.10-73). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would have no impact on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, and no mitigation is required (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-72 and 3.10-73). 4.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Threshold: Would the Program conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-40 and 3.5-41) Explanation: The generation of GHG emissions from each construction project would be short term. Construction activities would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, in addition to the implementation of identified BMPs, to minimize GHG emissions and construction effects. While construction activities may generate GHG emissions, construction of the 33 June 2022 1 16 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Program under the Build Alternative Options would result in the operation of an enhanced passenger rail system within the Program Corridor. The operation of the enhanced passenger rail system would reduce VMTs within the region, which would have a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions generated. Since the Program is anticipated to result in beneficial GHG emission reductions through VMT reductions and technological improvements, the Program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the plans, policies, or programs associated with GHG reduction efforts. Less than significant impacts are anticipated (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-25 through and 3.5-29). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-40 and 3.5-41). 4.1.8 Utilities and Service Systems Landfill Capacity Threshold: Would the Program generate solid waste in excess or state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-46 and 3.12-47) Explanation: Construction activities would be required to adhere to the local jurisdictions' goals and regulations associated with solid waste disposal and recycling. Although construction activities under any of the Build Alternative Options could increase the generation of solid waste, appropriate construction waste disposal and recycling methods per the local jurisdiction's goals and regulations would be used to minimize the amount of solid waste that would be transported to a solid waste facility. During Program operation, the increase in train service (two additional round trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land uses and would not result in significant increases in generation of solid waste or require new or additional solid waste facilities (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-33 through 3.12-35). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-46 and 3.12-47). Solid Waste Threshold: Would the Program comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-48 and 3.12-49) 34 June 2022 1 17 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: Construction activities would be required to adhere to the local jurisdictions' goals and regulations associated with solid waste disposal and recycling. Although construction activities under any of the Build Alternative Options could increase the generation of solid waste, appropriate construction waste disposal and recycling methods per the local jurisdiction's goals and regulations would be used to minimize the amount of solid waste that would be transported to a solid waste facility to a level that is considered less than significant. Therefore, construction activities are unlikely to conflict with federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-48). During Program operation, the increase in train service (two additional round trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and would not result in new generation of solid waste that would conflict with solid waste regulations (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12- 48). For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Program would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and no mitigation is required (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-48). 4.2 Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level that is Less than Significant Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for the Program, as well as the supporting administrative record, the Commission hereby makes findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, PRC Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6. The following findings have been made for the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR relating to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities, and wildfire. The Commission hereby finds that feasible mitigation strategies have been identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. The potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation strategies are described below. 35 June 2022 1 18 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.2.1 Biological Resources Federally Protected Wetlands Threshold: Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.7- 33 through 3.7-34). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would require infrastructure improvements such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and stations to accommodate the proposed service; however, the location of these improvements has not yet been identified at the Tier 1/Program level. Construction activities associated with the Eastern Section could include vegetation removal; ground clearing; placement of fill material; new, replaced, or extended culverts; and station facility development. These type of construction activities could result in short term/temporary effects associated with the temporary disturbance of wetland areas and functions. Waterbodies that may run parallel to the Eastern Section route, such as San Timoteo Creek, could be affected by longer stretches of cut, fills, or diversions required to construct ballast, embankments, drainage slopes, or other railway or station infrastructure components. Waterbodies adjacent to the Eastern Section route may also be relocated or even truncated to accommodate the new railway and station infrastructure. The placement of fill required for major infrastructure, such as sidings, spurs, yards, and stations, could further increase effects within jurisdictional waters and wetland areas. Effects on jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, in the Eastern Section are anticipated to be unavoidable given the number of waterways and drainages. Potential operational impacts on wetlands depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station locations, which are currently unknown at the Tier 1/Program level. However, operational effects are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas. Efforts during the design phase to avoid wetlands would help to minimize potential operational effects because fewer jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands would be in proximity to a future rail line or station area. In addition, maintenance BMPs would be developed and implemented for future station areas to ensure that maintenance materials such as oils, lubricants, and fuels are handled in an appropriate regulatory manner and kept away from sensitive areas such as waterbodies or wetlands (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.7-26). 36 June 2022 1 19 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Construction and operational impacts on jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, would be minimized through regulatory compliance with Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA and with implementation of the Mitigation Strategies BIO-1, BIO-5, HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, and HAZ-2. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 2/Project-level study area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Special -status species o Nesting birds o Wildlife movement o Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat o Jurisdictional waters o Applicable habitat conservation plans o Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to obtain regulatory permits and implement Project -specific mitigation prior to any construction activities. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-5: Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend worker environmental awareness program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special -status resources that may occur in the Tier 2/Project-level study area. The specifics of this program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identification of the sensitive species and habitats 37 June 2022 1 20 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources o Review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts on biological resources within the work area o Preparation of a fact sheet conveying this information shall for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the Project o Employee documentation associated with worker environmental awareness program attendance and acknowledgment • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facilities requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. o Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management practices shall be utilized during construction activities. o A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. o A rain event action plan shall be prepared. 38 June 2022 1 21 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-3: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the operation of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Program. These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Low impact, site design, and source control best management practices shall be identified to be utilized during operational activities. o A water quality management plan shall be prepared that will be implemented and maintained throughout the life of a project and used by property owners, facility operators, tenants, facility employees, and maintenance contractors. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before operation on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific hazardous materials management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following: o A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) o Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38) o A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous 39 June 2022 1 22 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations wastes, as required by their level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910) o Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on -site hazardous chemical (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) Implementation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1 and BIO-5 would require biological screening and worker awareness training during construction of any Tier 2 projects. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would require additional floodplain and hydrology documentation, if applicable, at the Tier 2/Project level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1, BIO-5, HWQ-1, and HWQ-2 would reduce construction -related impacts to jurisdictional waters to a level that is considered less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2 and HWQ-3 would require preparation of a site -specific hazardous materials management program for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed, and adherence to the provisions of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Program, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-2 and HWQ-3 would reduce operational impacts to jurisdictional waters to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1, BIO-5, HAZ-2, HWQ-1, HWQ-2, and HWQ-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.7-33 through 3.7-38). 4.2.2 Energy Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Threshold: Would the Program result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction or operation? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12- 35 through 3.12-39). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) 40 June 2022 1 23 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (e.g., sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and stations) would consume gasoline and diesel fuel through operation of heavy duty, off road construction equipment and on road vehicles. The amount of fuel consumed would vary depending on the length of the construction period, specific construction activity (e.g., grading, bridge, and construction), types of equipment, and number of personnel. Design specifics and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not known at the Tier 1/Program level, so the energy that may need to be consumed during specific construction activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Once detailed construction information for the site specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility is available, a quantitative estimate of the total energy consumption during construction would be conducted and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project level analysis. The effects of construction under any of the Build Alternative Options are not anticipated to be substantial with respect to energy consumption. The operational effect of any of the Build Alternative Options would be a net energy savings relative to the No Build Alternative on an annual basis. To achieve those energy savings, construction activity is needed to build the Program and allow drivers of on road personal vehicles to shift to rail transportation. Because construction would involve typical activities for the purpose of building a more efficient, energy saving transportation mode, fuel and other energy consumed during construction would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.12-36). Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Strategy GHG-1 below, which requires the preparation and implementation of a construction energy conservation plan, would also reduce the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction activities to a level that is considered less than significant. Operation of subsequent Tier 2/Project level improvements would result in energy usage that would be needed to run the passenger rail system and new station facilities. Although operation of the Program would require energy, it is anticipated that the Program would result in overall energy savings because the primary source of energy consumption for the Program (i.e., train propulsion) is more efficient than personal on road vehicles, which are largely single use. New station facilities would also be constructed to be energy efficient, further reducing the energy needed to operate the new station facilities (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-36 through 3.12-39). Once detailed Tier 2/Project level information is available, a quantitative estimate of the total energy consumption during operation would be prepared and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Strategy GHG-2, which requires the preparation and implementation of an operational energy conservation plan, the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation would be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant. 41 June 2022 1 24 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy GHG-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a construction energy conservation plan to avoid excess energy consumption shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The construction energy conservation plan shall identify best management practices including, but not limited to, the following: o Identification of opportunities to use newer, more energy efficient construction equipment, vehicles, and materials o Limit construction equipment idling o Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool or use public transportation for travel to and from construction sites o Locate construction materials production facilities onsite or in proximity to project work sites o Schedule material deliveries during off peak hours to minimize highway congestion • Mitigation Strategy GHG-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, an operational energy conservation plan shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The operational energy conservation plan shall identify best management practices, including, but not limited to, the following: o Limit operational idling at stations o Identify state -of the -art locomotives to maximize fuel efficiency o Target -market to drivers of single -occupancy vehicles to maximize the effects of rail modal use on energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions o Concentrate bus -service routes to feed passengers to train stations o Bring dispersed riders to train stations through other methods (e.g., demand response systems [paratransit, taxi, shuttle, call -and -ride]) Implementation of Mitigation Strategy GHG-1 would reduce the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Program construction to a level that is considered less than significant by requiring the preparation and implementation of a construction energy conservation plan during Tier 2 projects, if applicable. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy GHG-2 would reduce the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Program operation to a level that is considered less than significant by requiring the preparation and implementation of an operational energy conservation plan during Tier 2 projects, if applicable. 42 June 2022 1 25 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies GHG-1 and GHG-2 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-49 through 3.12-55). 4.2.3 Geology and Soils Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault Threshold: Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 55 through 3.10-56). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Build Alternative Options cross Alquist Priolo fault zones capable of ground rupture and would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction. Construction and operation of the Program would comply with federal, state, and local design and safety criteria regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR pp. 3.10-55 through 3.10-57). In the absence of site -specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 and LU-3, which require the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports and land use consistency analyses, respectively, during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the 43 June 2022 1 26 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Site preparation o Soil bearing capacity o Appropriate sources and types of fill o Liquefaction o Lateral spreading o Corrosive soils o Structural foundations o Grading practices The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final geotechnical report. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-63 through 3.10-64). Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 55 through 3.10-56). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) 44 June 2022 1 27 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: The Build Alternative Options cross Alquist Priolo fault zones capable of ground rupture and would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction. Construction and operation of the Program would comply with federal, state, and local design and safety criteria regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR pp. 3.10-55 through 3.10-57). In the absence of site -specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 and LU-3, which require the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports and land use consistency analyses, respectively, during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project -level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Site preparation o Soil -bearing capacity o Appropriate sources and types of fill o Liquefaction o Lateral spreading o Corrosive soils o Structural foundations o Grading practices The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final geotechnical report. 45 June 2022 1 28 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-64 through 3.10-65). Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Seismic -Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 55 through 3.10-56). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Build Alternative Options cross Alquist Priolo fault zones capable of ground rupture and would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction. Construction and operation of the Program would comply with federal, state, and local design and safety criteria regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR pp. 3.10-55 through 3.10-57). In the absence of site -specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of 46 June 2022 1 29 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Strategy GEO-1, which requires the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Site preparation o Soil -bearing capacity o Appropriate sources and types of fill o Liquefaction o Lateral spreading o Corrosive soils o Structural foundations o Grading practices The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final geotechnical report. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.10-66). Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Landslides Threshold: Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 55 through 3.10-57). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Build Alternative Options cross Alquist Priolo fault zones capable of ground rupture and would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction. Construction and operation of the Program would comply with federal, state, and local 47 June 2022 1 30 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations design and safety criteria regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR pp. 3.10-55 through 3.10-57). In the absence of site -specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 and LU- 3, which require the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports and land use consistency analyses, respectively, during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Site preparation o Soil -bearing capacity o Appropriate sources and types of fill o Liquefaction o Lateral spreading o Corrosive soils o Structural foundations o Grading practices The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final geotechnical report. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study 48 June 2022 1 31 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-64 through 3.10-65). Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Threshold: Would the Program result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 68). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction activities associated with rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities would include clearing, grading, and excavation, which have the potential to result in soil erosion. The Tier 2/Project level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts associated with site - specific drainage patterns changes and the potential for site specific construction activities to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.10-68). In the absence of site - specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-2 and LU-3, which require compliance with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities and the preparation of land use consistency analysis, respectively, during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002), and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. 49 June 2022 1 32 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management practices shall be utilized during construction activities. o A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. o A rain event action plan shall be prepared. o A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and LU-3 would reduce potential significant impacts pertaining to erosion and the loss of topsoil during construction to a level that is considered less than significant by requiring compliance with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities and the preparation of land use consistency analysis, respectively, during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.10-68). Unstable Geologic Unit Threshold: Would the Program be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Program and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 55 through 3.10-57, 3.10-69 through 3.10-70). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) 50 June 2022 1 33 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: The Build Alternative Options cross Alquist Priolo fault zones capable of ground rupture and would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction. Construction and operation of the Program would comply with federal, state, and local design and safety criteria regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk, including risk of infrastructure being constructed on an unstable geologic unit (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR pp. 3.10-55 through 3.10-57). In the absence of site -specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1, which requires the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Site preparation o Soil -bearing capacity o Appropriate sources and types of fill o Liquefaction o Lateral spreading o Corrosive soils o Structural foundations o Grading practices The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final geotechnical report. 51 June 2022 1 34 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Implementation of Mitigation Strategy GEO-1, which requires the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts pertaining to unstable geologic units to a level that is considered less than significant For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy GEO- 1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-70). Expansive Soils Threshold: Would the Program be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 55 through 3.10-57, 3.10-71 through 3.10-72). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Build Alternative Options cross Alquist Priolo fault zones capable of ground rupture and would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and liquefaction. Construction and operation of the Program would comply with federal, state, and local design and safety criteria regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk, including risk of infrastructure being constructed on expansive soils (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR pp. 3.10-55 through 3.10-57). In the absence of site -specific evaluations, impacts are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies GEO-1, which requires the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is considered less than significant, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the 52 June 2022 1 35 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Site preparation o Soil -bearing capacity o Appropriate sources and types of fill o Liquefaction o Lateral spreading o Corrosive soils o Structural foundations o Grading practices The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final geotechnical report. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy GEO-1, which requires the preparation of preliminary geotechnical reports during Tier 2/Project-level evaluation, would reduce potentially significant impacts pertaining to expansive soils to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy GEO- 1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-71). 4.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold: Would the Program generate GHG emissions, either directly, or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5- 38 through 3.5-40 and 3.5-58 through 3.5-59). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade separation structures) and station facilities would result in short term increases in GHG emissions in and around the construction site. 53 June 2022 1 36 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations GHG emissions would be generated from the use of equipment to conduct vegetation clearing, grading and excavation, and transport of materials and waste. The GHG emissions that could be generated would vary depending on the length of the construction period, specific construction activity (e.g., grading, paving, pile driving), types of equipment, and number of personnel (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-26 through 3.5-29). In some situations, construction GHG emissions associated from a Tier 2 project may be orders of magnitude lower than the operational emissions from the project due to construction emissions generally being short in duration compared with the project's overall lifetime. However, there are instances when projects have long construction periods (e.g., 10 years) and may result in a large amount of emissions that, either directly or indirectly, may have a significant impact on the environment. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies GHG-1 and LU-2 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with construction GHG emissions to a level that is considered less than significant. Operation of the Build Alternative Options would generate GHG emissions. However, the Build Alternative Options would result in overall energy savings and reduce the transportation system's impact on climate change because rail transit and public transportation generally produces significantly lower GHG emissions per passenger mile than private single occupancy vehicles. Based on projected ridership and VMT reductions, passenger rail use within the Program Corridor would decrease VMT and related mobile source emissions. This would be offset somewhat by locomotive operations and train station facility operations that would generate GHG emissions (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-27 through 3.5-29). A comprehensive quantitative GHG analysis would be performed during Tier 2/Project level analysis to determine GHG effects and quantify on road mobile source emissions reductions, as well as locomotive operations and train station operations area source emissions. Additionally, Mitigation Strategies GHG-2 and LU-3 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with operational GHG emissions to a level that is considered less than significant. • Mitigation Strategy GHG-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a construction energy conservation plan to avoid excess energy consumption shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The construction energy conservation plan shall identify best management practices including, but not limited to, the following: o Identification of opportunities to use newer, more energy efficient construction equipment, vehicles, and materials o Limit construction equipment idling o Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool or use public transportation for travel to and from construction sites 54 June 2022 1 37 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Locate construction materials production facilities onsite or in proximity to project work sites o Schedule material deliveries during off peak hours to minimize highway congestion • Mitigation Strategy GHG-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, an operational energy conservation plan shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The operational energy conservation plan shall identify best management practices, including, but not limited to, the following: o Limit operational idling at stations o Identify state of the art locomotives to maximize fuel efficiency o Target market to drivers of single occupancy vehicles to maximize the effects of rail modal use on energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions o Concentrate bus service routes to feed passengers to train stations o Bring dispersed riders to train stations through other methods (e.g., demand response systems [paratransit, taxi, shuttle, call and ride]) • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities 55 June 2022 1 38 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy GHG-1 and Mitigation Strategy LU-2 would require preparation and implementation of a construction energy conservation plan and construction management plan, respectively, to avoid excess energy consumption during construction of the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed, if applicable at the Tier 2/Project level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy GHG-2 and LU-3 would require preparation and implementation of an operational energy conservation plan and land use consistency analysis, respectively, to avoid excess energy consumption during operation of the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed, if applicable at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies GHG-1, GHG-2, LU-2, and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-43 through 3.5-45). 4.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the Program create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 55 through 3.11-56). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O91(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction activities could result in the temporary disturbance of hazardous materials sites, including sites with known soil or groundwater contamination, which would require cleanup and disposal of those materials. Due to the variety of potential construction techniques and numerous hazardous materials sites in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, impacts are considered potentially significant. Additionally, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation does not identify the nature and severity of contamination at specific sites because the sites for where infrastructure and station improvements would be constructed have not yet been selected (Draft Tier 1/Program 56 June 2022 1 39 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-45 through 3.11-46). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant: Similarly, potential operational impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials depend on the location of new rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Some operational impacts could result in the generation of additional hazardous waste, contaminated materials, and solid waste, which would be handled by new maintenance facilities within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-46 through 3.11-47). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2 has been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a level that is considered less than significant during operation of Tier 2 projects. • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be conducted to determine the significance of impacts on hazardous waste or materials sites due to the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The site -specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall adhere to ASTM-conforming requirements and include recommendations on if a subsequent Phase II Site Investigation is required for the selected site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall also include a discussion of observed and/or suspected asbestos -containing materials, potential lead -based paint, and other materials falling under the Universal Waste requirements within the selected site. • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific hazardous materials management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following: o A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) o Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38) 57 June 2022 1 40 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as required by their level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910) o Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on -site hazardous chemical (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-3: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be screened by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if land use restrictions or activity use limitations are present. If the site contains land use restrictions or activity use limitations that would be affected by the Project, coordination with the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be required. Such coordination shall consist of notifying the local enforcement branch of the agencies that work is planned for a restricted property. Notification typically results in a meeting with regulators that would determine the requirements for the property during the Project. A soil management plan and a health and safety plan are typically required to be completed, reviewed, and approved in writing by the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board). These requirements, and any additional requirements, shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would require preparation and implementation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a site specific hazardous materials management program, and site -specific hazardous materials screening, respectively, to reduce potentially significant impacts pertaining to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation at the Tier 2/Project level to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). 58 June 2022 1 41 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Threshold: Would the Program create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 56 through 3.11-57). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction activities could result in the temporary disturbance of hazardous materials sites, including sites with known soil or groundwater contamination, which would require cleanup and disposal of those materials. Due to the variety of potential construction techniques and numerous hazardous materials sites in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, impacts are considered potentially significant. Additionally, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation does not identify the nature and severity of contamination at specific sites because the sites for where infrastructure and station improvements would be constructed have not yet been selected (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-45 through 3.11-46). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1 through Haz-3 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials during construction of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant. Similarly, potential operational impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials depend on the location of new rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Some operational impacts could result in minor spills and releases of non -acutely hazardous waste (i.e., petroleum, oil, and lubricants) along the tracks and at stations or maintenance facilities (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-46 through 3.11-47). Accordingly, the Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2 has been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials to a level that is considered less than significant during operation of Tier 2 projects. • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be conducted to determine the significance of impacts on hazardous waste or materials sites due to the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The site -specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall adhere to ASTM-conforming requirements and include recommendations on if a subsequent Phase II Site Investigation is required for the selected site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall also include a discussion of observed and/or suspected 59 June 2022 1 42 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations asbestos -containing materials, potential lead -based paint, and other materials falling under the Universal Waste requirements within the selected site. • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific hazardous materials management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following: o A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) o Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38) o A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as required by their level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910) o Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on -site hazardous chemical (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-3: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be screened by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if land use restrictions or activity use limitations are present. If the site contains land use restrictions or activity use limitations that would be affected by the Project, coordination with the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be required. Such coordination shall consist of notifying the local enforcement branch of the agencies that work 60 June 2022 1 43 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations is planned for a restricted property. Notification typically results in a meeting with regulators that would determine the requirements for the property during the Project. A soil management plan and a health and safety plan are typically required to be completed, reviewed, and approved in writing by the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board). These requirements, and any additional requirements, shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would require preparation and implementation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a site specific hazardous materials management program, and site -specific hazardous materials screening, respectively, to reduce potentially significant impacts pertaining to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials during construction and operation of the Program. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-4 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). Acutely Hazardous Materials within 1/4 Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 58 through 3.11-59). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O91(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential construction and operation impacts related to the handling of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Due to the variety of potential construction techniques and numerous hazardous materials sites in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, site specific construction and operational impacts and associated measures to existing school facilities are considered potentially significant. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HAZ-2 and LU-3 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school to a level that is considered less than significant during construction and operation of the Program. • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific hazardous materials management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station 61 June 2022 1 44 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations facilities proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following: o A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) o Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38) o A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as required by their level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910) o Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on -site hazardous chemical (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2 and LU-3, which require the preparation and implementation of a site specific hazardous materials management program and land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or 62 June 2022 1 45 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school to a level that is considered less than significant during construction and operation of the Program. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-2 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). Hazardous Materials Sites Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 58 through 3.11-59). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Hazardous waste and materials sites have been identified within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Hazardous waste and material sites pose a safety risk to workers who might be exposed to contaminated soil, water, and vapors. Construction activities involving excavation increase the likelihood for encountering existing and unknown regulated materials. In addition, vehicles and equipment used during construction activities, such as fuel storage tanks, have the potential to release hazardous materials (mainly petroleum products) and have the potential to increase of material spills. However, potential impacts associated with hazardous waste and material sites are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with hazardous materials sites during construction of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Phase !Environmental Site Assessment shall be conducted to determine the significance of impacts on hazardous waste or materials sites due to the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The site -specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall adhere to ASTM-conforming requirements and include recommendations on if a subsequent Phase II Site Investigation is required for the selected site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall also include a discussion of observed and/or suspected asbestos -containing materials, potential lead -based paint, and other materials falling under the Universal Waste requirements within the selected site. 63 June 2022 1 46 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific hazardous materials management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following: o A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) o Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38) o A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as required by their level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910) o Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on -site hazardous chemical (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200) o Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120) • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-3: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be screened by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if land use restrictions or activity use limitations are present. If the site contains land use restrictions or activity use limitations that would be affected by the Project, coordination with the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be required. Such coordination shall consist of notifying the local enforcement branch of the agencies that work is planned for a restricted property. Notification typically results in a meeting with regulators that would determine the requirements for the property during the Project. A soil 64 June 2022 1 47 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations management plan and a health and safety plan are typically required to be completed, reviewed, and approved in writing by the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board). These requirements, and any additional requirements, shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would require preparation and implementation of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, a site specific hazardous materials management program, and site -specific hazardous materials screening, respectively, to reduce potentially significant impacts pertaining to hazardous materials sites during construction at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-2, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). Public Airports and Private Airstrips Threshold: Would the Program be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would the Program result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 61 through 3.11-62). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential impacts associated with consistency with airport land use compatibility plans depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and type of construction activities, which are currently unknown. Portions the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are located within the Banning Municipal Airport, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, Palm Springs International Airport, and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Influence Areas. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-48 through 3.11-49). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy LU-3 has been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with safety hazards and excessive noise associated with airports during construction and operation of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy LU 3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis 65 June 2022 1 48 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3, which requires the preparation and implementation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with safety hazards and excessive noise associated with airports during construction and operation of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Program impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 62 through 3.11-63). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O91(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential construction impacts that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. However, implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4, LU-2, and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to emergency access and response by requiring coordination with emergency providers through design and analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ 4: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a Project specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire departments for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and notification. • Mitigation Strategy LU 2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project 66 June 2022 1 49 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the identified Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities • Mitigation Strategy LU 3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4, LU-2, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to emergency access and response by requiring coordination with emergency providers through design and analysis at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation Mitigation Strategies HAZ- 4, LU-2, and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the Program expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 62 through 3.11-63). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 67 June 2022 1 50 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction of the Program in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. Construction activities located within a SRA or LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones under any of the Build Alternative Options have an increased risk of causing a wildfire due to increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. While applicable fire codes and design features for fire suppression would be developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, would be located, which have not yet been selected. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-47 through 3.11-48). However, implementation of Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to wildland fires by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a Project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire departments for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and notification. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to wildland fires by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project - specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.11-72). 4.2.6 Hydrology and Water Quality Existing Drainage Patterns and Erosion/Siltation Threshold: Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 68 June 2022 1 51 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 44 through 3.9-45). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential construction impacts associated with erosion or siltation are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. However, the construction of these improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns of the site through the addition of new impervious surfaces and structures (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-36 through 3.9-39). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HWQ-2 and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. o Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management practices shall be utilized during construction activities. o A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. o A rain event action plan shall be prepared. o A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the 69 June 2022 1 52 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-2 and LU-3, which require compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and preparation and implementation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would minimize potential erosion and siltation impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation HWQ-2 and LU-3, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-51 through 3.9--52). Existing Drainage and Surface Runoff/Flooding Threshold: Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 44 through 3.9-45). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential construction impacts related to surface runoff rate and volume increases are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities. The construction of these improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns of the site and flood flows within the area. There are numerous drainages, waterways, and floodplains in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, but a detailed analysis on how drainage patterns and flood flow could change cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level, as the locations of infrastructure and facilities is unknown (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-35). Accordingly, the Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with flooding to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy HWQ 1: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of 70 June 2022 1 53 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations specific rail infrastructure or station facility requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and LU-3, which require the preparation and implementation of additional floodplain hydrology documentation and a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would minimize potential flooding impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation HWQ-1 and LU-3, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-51 through 3.9--52). Existing Drainage and Stormwater Drainage Capacity/Sources of Polluted Runoff Threshold: Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 45 through 3.9-46). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential construction impacts related to surface runoff rate and volume increases are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities. The construction of these improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns of the 71 June 2022 1 54 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations site. There are numerous drainages, waterways, and floodplains in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, but a detailed analysis on how drainage patterns could change cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level as the locations of infrastructure and facilities is unknown (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-35). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy LU-3 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with stormwater drainage capacity and polluted runoff to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3, which requires the preparation and implementation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would minimize potential impacts associated with stormwater drainage capacity and polluted runoff to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-51 through 3.9--52). Existing Drainage and Re -directing Flood Flows Threshold: Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 47 through 3.9-48). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. However, the construction of these improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns of the site and flood flows within an area through the addition of new impervious surfaces and structures (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-37). Accordingly, 72 June 2022 1 55 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with re -directing flood flows to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy HWQ 1: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and LU-3, which require the preparation and implementation of additional floodplain hydrology documentation and a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would minimize potential impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation HWQ-1 and LU-3, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-51 through 3.9--52). Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Program Inundation Threshold: Would the Program be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 48 through 3.9-49). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) 73 June 2022 1 56 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: Potential impacts related to flood hazards are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. While the Eastern Section is not within an identified area for tsunami or seiche zone risks, it crosses numerous FEMA flood zones. Construction activities associated with new rail infrastructure or station facilities may impact flood flows (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-35). Accordingly, the following mitigation strategies have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with Program inundation due to flooding to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy HWQ 1: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. o Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management practices shall be utilized during construction activities. o A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. o A rain event action plan shall be prepared. o A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. 74 June 2022 1 57 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1 and HWQ-2, which require additional floodplain hydrology documentation and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would minimize potential impacts associated with Program inundation due to flooding to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-51 through 3.9--52). Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan Threshold: Would the Program conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 49 through 3.9-50). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan are dependent on where the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are located, which is currently unknown. However, construction impacts could occur in multiple jurisdictions under different regional water quality programs (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9- 49 through 3.9-50). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HWQ-2 and LU-3 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with Program construction conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan to a level that is considered less than significant. Similarly, potential conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan during Program operation are dependent on where rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are located. Operational impacts could occur in multiple jurisdictions under different regional water quality programs. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies HWQ-1, LU-3, and UTL-1 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with Program conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan during operation to a level that is considered less than significant. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail 75 June 2022 1 58 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations infrastructure or station facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. o Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management practices shall be utilized during construction activities. o A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. o A rain event action plan shall be prepared. o A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 76 June 2022 1 59 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy UTL-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional water supply documentation shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine water supply impacts (including groundwater basin withdrawals) associated with the operation of rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. If require by the identified lead agency or agencies, this documentation shall include, but is not limited to, the following: o A site -specific water supply assessment shall be prepared, per Senate Bill 610 requirements. o Water supply verification letters shall be obtained from the applicable water purveyor per Senate Bill 221 requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-2 and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential conflicts with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans by requiring compliance with applicable regulations and identifying specific resources that would be impacted by Tier 2/Project-level construction. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-3, UTL-1, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential conflicts with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans by requiring compliance with applicable regulations and identifying specific resources that would be impacted by Project operation. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation HWQ-1, HWQ-2, LU-3, and UTL-1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-50 through 3.9-52). 4.2.7 Noise and Vibration Ground -Borne Vibration Threshold: Would the Program result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6- 37 through 3.6-38). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potentially significant impacts may occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under the Program. Potential impacts related to excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and the type of construction activities. Vibration from construction equipment may be intermittently perceptible at sensitive receptor locations. Operation of station facilities or new rail infrastructure 77 June 2022 1 60 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations improvements may also result in a new source of vibration within a particular site. These are considered potentially significant impacts (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6-30 through 3.6-32). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy NOI-2 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with groundborne vibration to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy NOI-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific noise and vibration assessment shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The site -specific noise and vibration assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identification of adjacent noise sensitive land uses that would be impacted by construction and operation activities associated with the specific rail infrastructure or station facility. o Identification of construction equipment required to be within 50 feet of existing structures. If construction equipment is required within 50 feet, the assessment will demonstrate that the human annoyance threshold of 78 velocity in decibels (0.032 inches per second peak particle velocity) and structural damage thresholds of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings and 0.12 inches per second peak particle velocity for historic -age buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage is achieved. o Identification of existing noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive land uses. o Identification of any on -site generated noise sources, including generators, mechanical equipment, and trucks and predicted noise levels at property lines from all identified equipment. o Recommended mitigation to be implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), to ensure compliance with the local jurisdiction's noise regulations or ordinances. Noise reduction measures shall include building noise -attenuating walls, reducing noise at the source by requiring quieter machinery or limiting the hours of operation, or other attenuation measures. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site -specific noise analyses. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy NOI-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with groundborne vibration to a level that is less than significant by requiring preparation and implementation of site specific noise and vibration assessments during Tier 2/Project-level analyses. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts 78 June 2022 1 61 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy NOI-2 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6-41 through 3.6-42). Private/Public Airport Threshold: Would the Program be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the Program area to excessive noise levels? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6- 37 through 3.6-38). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential impacts associated with consistency with airport land use compatibility plans depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and type of construction activities, which are currently unknown. Portions the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are located within the Banning Municipal Airport, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, Palm Springs International Airport, and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Influence Areas. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6-37 through 3.6-38). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy LU-3 has been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with excessive noise associated with airports during construction and operation of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy LU 3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3, which requires the preparation and implementation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with excessive noise associated with airports during construction and operation of Tier 2 projects to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6-37 through 3.6-38). 79 June 2022 1 62 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.2.8 Population and Housing Substantial Unplanned Population Growth Threshold: Would the Program induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.16- 19). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Program would implement new railroad infrastructure that may result in additional population growth within the Program Corridor. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies PH -1 and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy PH -1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, any required acquisitions related to the construction of infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade -separation structures, and stations) shall be identified. If the proposed Project would have the potential to result in property acquisitions that would require residential or commercial displacement, a relocation mitigation plan shall be prepared, in consultation with affected property owners. The relocation mitigation plan shall be designed to meet the following objectives: o Provide affected property and business owners and tenants a high level of individualized assistance in situations when acquisition is necessary, and the property owner desires to relocate the existing use o Coordinate relocation activities that would result in displacements to ensure all displaced persons and businesses receive fair and consistent relocation benefits o Minimize the permanent closure of businesses and non-profit agencies as a result of property acquisition o Within the limits established by law and regulation, minimize the economic disruption caused to property owners by relocation o Provide regulatory compliance assistance to those business owners who require complex permitting 80 June 2022 1 63 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU 3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies PH -1 and LU-3, which require the identification of potential property acquisitions and the preparation and implementation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with substantial, unplanned population growth as a result of the Program to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies PH - 1 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.16-19). Displace Housing and People Threshold: Would the Program displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.16- 20). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Program may require the acquisition of significant ROW, and, as a result could displace people and housing. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy PH -1 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with displacing substantial numbers of people and housing to a level that is considered less than significant: • Mitigation Strategy PH -1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, any required acquisitions related to the construction of infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade -separation structures, and stations) shall be identified. If the proposed Project would have the potential to result in property acquisitions that would require residential or commercial displacement, a relocation mitigation plan shall be prepared, in consultation with affected property owners. The relocation mitigation plan shall be designed to meet the following objectives: 81 June 2022 1 64 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Provide affected property and business owners and tenants a high level of individualized assistance in situations when acquisition is necessary, and the property owner desires to relocate the existing use o Coordinate relocation activities that would result in displacements to ensure all displaced persons and businesses receive fair and consistent relocation benefits o Minimize the permanent closure of businesses and non-profit agencies as a result of property acquisition o Within the limits established by law and regulation, minimize the economic disruption caused to property owners by relocation o Provide regulatory compliance assistance to those business owners who require complex permitting Implementation of Mitigation Strategy PH -1, which requires the identification of potential property acquisitions at the Tier 2/Project level, would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with displacing substantial numbers of people and housing to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy PH -1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.16-20). 4.2.9 Recreation Existing Facilities Threshold: Would the proposed Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.14- 28 through 3.14-29). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Implementation of the Program would result in the operation of passenger rail service. The improvements envisioned include various rail infrastructure and station facilities that are not anticipated to result in population growth that would increase the use of recreational facilities in the area. However, in the event that station facilities include a transit -orientated development component, there is the potential for an increase in use at existing recreational resources. This is 82 June 2022 1 65 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations considered a potentially significant impact. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy PCS-1 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts on existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities to a less than signficant level: • Mitigation Strategy PCS-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, recreational resources that would be impacted by the site -specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility shall be identified, and any physical take of recreational properties shall be evaluated. Measures to avoid or minimize impacts on recreational properties shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Selection of rail station locations that avoid recreational resources o Moving equipment and facilities to another located within existing parkland o Planting vegetation to offset removed vegetation or to establish visual or auditory screening • Mitigation Strategy LU 3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy PCS-1, which requires further analysis of impacts to parks and recreational facilities at the Tier 2/Project level, would reduce potentially significant impacts on existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy PCS- 1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.14-31). 4.2.10 Transportation CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) Threshold: Would the Program conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.3- 60 through 3.3-61). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program 83 June 2022 1 66 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential impacts associated with construction VMTs depend of the location of new stations and other rail infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of these improvements could require large scale construction activities over an extended period of time. A detailed construction VMT analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location and duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure improvements is unknown. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategy TR-1 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) to a less than signficant level: • Mitigation Strategy TR-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project -specific traffic impact analysis shall be required for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The traffic impact analysis may include, but will not be limited to, the following: o Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: ■ Transportation management plans to mitigate construction -related traffic, including coordination with emergency providers ■ Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo -fly) to minimize disruption to rail operations during construction ■ Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which construction will occur ■ Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes o Analysis of operational -related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: ■ Roadway network impacts and fair -share mitigation to mitigate impacts ■ Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, rephrasing, and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and traffic diversion to alternative routes o For station facilities, identification and analysis of: 84 June 2022 1 67 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at stations • Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, emergency access) Implementation of Mitigation Strategy TR-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) to a less than significant level by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Project -specific traffic impact analysis at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategy TR-1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.3-65). Hazards Due to Geometric Design Threshold: Would the Program substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.3- 61 through 3.3-62). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction of the rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities have the potential to result in hazards from geometric design features or incompatible land uses Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies TR-1, LU-2, and SS -1 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with geometric design hazards: • Mitigation Strategy TR-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project -specific traffic impact analysis shall be required for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The traffic impact analysis may include, but will not be limited to, the following: o Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: • Transportation management plans to mitigate construction -related traffic, including coordination with emergency providers 85 June 2022 1 68 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo -fly) to minimize disruption to rail operations during construction • Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which construction will occur • Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes o Analysis of operational -related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: • Roadway network impacts and fair -share mitigation to mitigate impacts • Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, rephrasing, and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and traffic diversion to alternative routes o For station facilities, identification and analysis of: • Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at stations • Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, emergency access) • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services 86 June 2022 1 69 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities • Mitigation Strategy SS -1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project -specific collision hazard analysis shall be required and would be prepared in coordination local jurisdictions in which the specific rail infrastructure or station facility is located. The collision hazard analysis shall be prepared in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration's Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: Commuter and Intercity Passenger Service (Federal Railroad Administration 2007), which provides a step-by-step procedure on how to perform a hazard analysis, and how to develop effective mitigation strategies that would improve passenger rail safety. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies TR-1, LU-2, and SS -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with geometric design hazards to a less than significant level by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Project -specific traffic impact analysis, construction management plan, and collision hazard analysis, respectively, and if applicable, at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies TR- 1, LU-2, and SS -1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.3-65). Inadequate Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Program result in inadequate emergency access? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.3- 63 through 3.3-64). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of the rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access if road closures or detours are proposed or if adequate access to new stations is not provided. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies TR-1, LU-2, and SS -1 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with inadequate emergency access: 87 June 2022 1 70 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy TR-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project -specific traffic impact analysis shall be required for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The traffic impact analysis may include, but will not be limited to, the following: o Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: • Transportation management plans to mitigate construction -related traffic, including coordination with emergency providers • Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo -fly) to minimize disruption to rail operations during construction • Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which construction will occur • Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes o Analysis of operational -related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: • Roadway network impacts and fair -share mitigation to mitigate impacts • Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, rephrasing, and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and traffic diversion to alternative routes o For station facilities, identification and analysis of: • Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at stations • Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, emergency access) • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 88 June 2022 1 71 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities • Mitigation Strategy SS -1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project -specific collision hazard analysis shall be required and would be prepared in coordination local jurisdictions in which the specific rail infrastructure or station facility is located. The collision hazard analysis shall be prepared in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration's Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: Commuter and Intercity Passenger Service (Federal Railroad Administration 2007), which provides a step-by-step procedure on how to perform a hazard analysis, and how to develop effective mitigation strategies that would improve passenger rail safety. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies TR-1, LU-2, and SS -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with inadequate emergency access to a less than significant level by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Project -specific traffic impact analysis, construction management plan, and collision hazard analysis, respectively, and if applicable, at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies TR- 1, LU-2, and SS -1 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.3-65). 4.2.11 Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Treatment Threshold: Would the Program result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 89 June 2022 1 72 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12- 45 through 3.12-46). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: During construction activities, the construction contractor would provide portable toilets on site, which would then be removed from the site on a regular basis for servicing off site at an approved wastewater handling facility. Therefore, construction activities are unlikely to produce a substantial increase in wastewater generation and would have minimal impacts on wastewater treatment facilities. New rail infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to generate substantial amounts of wastewater during operation or maintenance activities. However, new station or maintenance facilities would result in a new source of wastewater that would need to be treated by the local wastewater treatment facility (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-31 through 3.12-33). Accordingly, Mitigation Strategies UTL-2 and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity to a level that is considered less than significant. • Mitigation Strategy UTL-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific utilities report shall be prepared for the rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The utilities report will identify the ability for existing utility infrastructure to serve the Project, additional utility infrastructure needs, and local jurisdiction/utility provider coordination. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following analyses: o Wastewater/Sewer Infrastructure. Identification of existing sewer infrastructure, sewer capacity, required wastewater/sewer relocations, and site -specific wastewater generation estimates o Electrical Infrastructure. Identification of existing electrical infrastructure, electrical capacity, required electrical infrastructure relocations, and site -specific electrical demand estimates o Natural Gas Infrastructure. Identification of existing natural gas infrastructure, required natural gas infrastructure relocations, and site -specific natural gas demand estimates • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resource within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 90 June 2022 1 73 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Implementation of Mitigation Strategies UTL-2 and LU-3, which require the preparation and implementation of site -specific utilities reports and land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, respectively, would reduce potentially significant impacts on available wastewater treatment capacity to a level that is considered less than significant. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Strategies UTL-2 and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-46). 4.2.12 Wildfire Impairment of Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would the Program substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 63 through 3.11-65). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O91(a)(1).) Explanation: Potential construction impacts that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. However, Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4, LU-2, and LU-3 have been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to emergency access and response by requiring coordination with emergency providers through design and analysis at the Tier 2/Project level, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a Project specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire departments for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and notification. • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to 91 June 2022 1 74 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the identified Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4, LU-2, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to emergency access and response by requiring coordination with emergency providers through design and analysis at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation Mitigation Strategies HAZ- 4, LU-2, and LU-3 (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-71 through 3.11-73). Wildfire Pollutants and Uncontrolled Spread of a Wildfire Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would the Program, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 66 through 3.11-67). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O91(a)(1).) 92 June 2022 1 75 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: Construction of the Program in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. Construction activities located within a SRA or LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones under any of the Build Alternative Options have an increased risk of causing a wildfire due to increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. While applicable fire codes would be complied with and design features for fire suppression would be developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, would be located, which have not yet been selected. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to result in changes associated with fire severity hazard zones. However, the operation of new station facilities within fire severity zones could result in an increased wildfire risk to people or structures in the area; therefore, there is potential for significant impacts (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-47 through 3.11-48). However, Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to wildland fires during construction and operation by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a Project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire departments for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and notification. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire and the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.11-72). 93 June 2022 1 76 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Infrastructure -Related Wildfire Risks Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would the Program require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 67 through 3.11-68). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction of the Program in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. Construction activities located within a SRA or LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones under any of the Build Alternative Options have an increased risk of causing a wildfire due to increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. While applicable fire codes and design features for fire suppression would be developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, would be located, which have not yet been selected. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to result in changes associated with fire severity hazard zones. However, the operation of new station facilities within fire severity zones could result in an increased wildfire risk to people or structures in the area; therefore, there is potential for significant impacts (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-47 through 3.11-48). However, Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to wildland fires during construction and operation by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a Project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire departments for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and notification. 94 June 2022 1 77 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to exacerbation of wildfire risks by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.11-72). Landslide and Slope Instability Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would the Program expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11- 68 through 3.11-69). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Construction of the Program in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. Construction activities located within a SRA or LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones under any of the Build Alternative Options have an increased risk of causing a wildfire due to increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. While applicable fire codes and design features for fire suppression would be developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, would be located, which have not yet been selected. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program level. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to result in changes associated with fire severity hazard zones. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-47 through 3.11-48). However, implementation of Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4 has been identified to minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to landslides and slope instability within wildfire areas during construction by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level, as follows: • Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a Project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire 95 June 2022 1 78 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations departments for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and notification. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HAZ-4 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts pertaining to exacerbation of wildfire risks, including landslides and slope instability, by requiring coordination with local fire departments to prepare project -specific Fire Control and Emergency Response Plans at the Tier 2/Project level. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4, (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.11-72). 4.3 Findings Regarding Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level that is Less than Significant The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Program at the Tier 1/Program level could be unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the environmental impact during subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis. As indicated below, RCTC has identified mitigation strategies that could reduce these impacts, albeit not to less -than - significant levels. RCTC hereby adopts these measures. Notwithstanding the disclosure of these significant and unavoidable impacts, RCTC elects to approve the Program and a statement of overriding considerations as set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is included herein, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. 4.3.1 Aesthetics Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.4-29 through 3.4- 30). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. 96 June 2022 1 79 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: Potential impacts on scenic vistas depend on the location of new stations, grade separations, and sound barriers, which are currently unknown. Visual impacts may occur if these new structures block views of important scenic vistas. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy VIS-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid impacts on scenic vistas by identifying design alternatives (e.g., undercrossings instead of overcrossings where scenic vistas might be blocked) or material alternatives (e.g., see-through materials for noise barriers) that would preserve existing views of scenic vistas. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.4-22). • Mitigation Strategy VIS-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process, the identified lead agency or agencies shall conduct an inventory of visual or aesthetic resources at the location of specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. If visual or aesthetic resources are present, the identified lead agency or agencies shall undertake an analysis associated with the specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with blocking views of identified visual resources (e.g., local scenic resources, mountain/foothill views) o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with change in visual character (e.g., removal of structures or landscaping) o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local design criteria and guidelines o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local lighting design criteria and guidelines Criteria to determine the type of site -specific mitigation for visual resources would be developed by the identified lead agency or agencies in consultation with local jurisdictions during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. Visual Character and Quality Threshold: Would the Program substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Program is in an urbanized area, would the Program conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.4-31 through 3.4- 32). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or 97 June 2022 1 80 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on the existing visual character or quality depend on the location of new stations, which are currently unknown. Significant impacts could occur if the improvements would remove existing structures or landscaping that contribute to a high level of visual character, or if they introduce visual elements that are out -of -scale or otherwise visually incompatible with the existing visual character. This would be most likely to occur if substantial ROW widening was necessary, at grade separations, or at stations and associated parking areas. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy VIS-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid impacts on visual character or quality by identifying design or material alternatives that avoid altering the existing visual character. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.4-22). • Mitigation Strategy VIS-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process, the identified lead agency or agencies shall conduct an inventory of visual or aesthetic resources at the location of specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. If visual or aesthetic resources are present, the identified lead agency or agencies shall undertake an analysis associated with the specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with blocking views of identified visual resources (e.g., local scenic resources, mountain/foothill views) o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with change in visual character (e.g., removal of structures or landscaping) o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local design criteria and guidelines o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local lighting design criteria and guidelines Criteria to determine the type of site -specific mitigation for visual resources would be developed by the identified lead agency or agencies in consultation with local jurisdictions during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. Light and Glare Threshold: Would the Program create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 98 June 2022 1 81 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.4-33 through 3.4- 34). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts related to light and glare depend on new station locations and infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. During operation, the addition of grade separations could result in roadway alignments that may result in headlight glare impacts on adjacent uses. Lighting at stations and parking lots could result in increased light levels or spillover lighting into adjacent areas. These are considered potentially significant impacts. While implementation of Mitigation Strategy VIS-1 and VIS-2 would minimize, reduce, or avoid impacts from a new source of substantial light and glare by minimizing light spillover and evaluating and addressing potential impacts from light sources during design and through the preparation of construction and operational lighting plans, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.4-22 through 3.4-23). • Mitigation Strategy VIS-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process, the identified lead agency or agencies shall conduct an inventory of visual or aesthetic resources at the location of specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. If visual or aesthetic resources are present, the identified lead agency or agencies shall undertake an analysis associated with the specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with blocking views of identified visual resources (e.g., local scenic resources, mountain/foothill views) o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with change in visual character (e.g., removal of structures or landscaping) o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local design criteria and guidelines o Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local lighting design criteria and guidelines Criteria to determine the type of site -specific mitigation for visual resources would be developed by the identified lead agency or agencies in consultation with local jurisdictions during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 99 June 2022 1 82 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy VIS-2: To address potential lighting impacts related to nighttime construction lighting, the contractor shall use construction lighting during nighttime that is limited to the minimum necessary for safety and security, and the use of downward facing, cut-off fixtures that do not allow spillover onto adjacent land uses. A construction lighting plan shall be developed for each station facility, taking into account local and regional lighting policies, including but not limited to, the Mount Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy. 4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Prime and Unique Farmland Conversion Threshold: Would the Program convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-39 through 3.2- 40). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: The construction of rail infrastructure and station facilities could convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to a non-agricultural use as these types of farmlands are present within the Program Corridor. Potential impacts associated with converting farmland to non-agricultural use depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-29 through 3.2-31). While implementation of Mitigation Strategies LU-4 and LU-5 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with converting farmland through design, further analysis, and the consideration of agricultural easements, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that agricultural easements would not actually mitigate the significant impact caused by the rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy LU-4: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, siting of rail infrastructure and station facilities shall be designed by the identified lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conversion of farmland resources. • Mitigation Strategy LU-5: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed is located within an area mapped as farmland by the California Department 100 June 2022 1 83 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations of Conservation. If the Tier 2/Project-level improvement is located in an area mapped as farmland, the preparation of a land evaluation and site assessment shall be conducted to determine significance of impacts attributed to the loss or conversion of farmland associated with the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed. Agricultural Zoning Threshold: Would the Program conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.2-41). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: The construction of rail infrastructure and station facilities could conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or lands currently under a Williamson Act contract as both are present within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Potential impacts associated with conflicts with existing zoning for agriculture or a Williamson Act contract depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.2-29 through 3.2-31). While implementation of Mitigation Strategies LU-4, LU-5, and LU-6 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with conflicts with agricultural zoning through design, further analysis, and the consideration of agricultural easements, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that agricultural easements would not actually mitigate the significant impact caused by the rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy LU-4: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, siting of rail infrastructure and station facilities shall be designed by the identified lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conversion of farmland resources. • Mitigation Strategy LU-5: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed is located within an area mapped as farmland by the California Department of Conservation. If the Tier 2/Project-level improvement is located in an area mapped as farmland, the preparation of a land evaluation and site assessment shall be conducted to determine significance of impacts attributed to the loss or conversion of farmland associated with the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed. 101 June 2022 1 84 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-6: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed is located on land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Where lands enrolled in a Williamson Act contract are impacted during the siting of rail infrastructure or station facilities, the California Department of Conservation shall be notified by the identified lead agency or agencies and requirements of Government Code Section 51290-51295 and 51296.6 shall be met. Conversion of Farmland to Non -Agricultural Use Threshold: Would the Program involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-44 through 3.2- 45). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: The construction of rail infrastructure and station facilities could result in the direct conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and represent a change in existing conditions that could result in an indirect potential for conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses within the Program Corridor. Potential impacts associated with converting farmland to non-agricultural use depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p. 3.2-29 through 3.2-31). While implementation of Mitigation Strategies LU-4 and LU-5 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with converting farmland through design, further analysis, and the consideration of agricultural easements, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that agricultural easements would not actually mitigate the significant impact caused by the rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy LU-4: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, siting of rail infrastructure and station facilities shall be designed by the identified lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conversion of farmland resources. • Mitigation Strategy LU-5: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed is located within an area mapped as farmland by the California Department 102 June 2022 1 85 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations of Conservation. If the Tier 2/Project-level improvement is located in an area mapped as farmland, the preparation of a land evaluation and site assessment shall be conducted to determine significance of impacts attributed to the loss or conversion of farmland associated with the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed. 4.3.3 Air Quality Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants Threshold: Would the Program result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-34 through 3.5- 35). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts associated with air quality construction emissions depend on the location of new stations and other rail infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of these improvements could require large scale construction activities over an extended period of time. A detailed air quality construction analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location and duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure improvements is unknown at this time. Similarly, potential impacts associated with air quality operational pollutant emissions would vary depending on the traffic generated in and around the existing stations as a result of operation associated with the enhanced passenger rail system. Therefore, there is potential for the Build Alternative Options to result in the generation of operational air quality pollutants at a localized level, and potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-17 through 3.5-25). While implementation of Mitigation Strategies AQ-1 and LU-2 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with cumulatively considerable net criteria pollutant increases, impacts may remain significant after mitigation. • Mitigation Strategy AQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific air quality analysis shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. If an air quality analysis is warranted at the Tier 2/Project level, the air quality analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the South Coast Air Quality Management 103 June 2022 1 86 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations District and applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The air quality analysis shall include analysis of construction and operational air quality impacts, including identification and analysis of: o Construction equipment to be used and corresponding air quality emissions that could be generated from construction activities. o Construction and operational traffic impacts analysis, including quantification of construction emissions and comparison with South Coast Air Quality Management District significance thresholds. o Sensitive receptors and exposure of those sensitive receptors to air quality emissions during construction and operational activities. If sensitive receptors are located within or adjacent to the Project site, a health risk assessment to assess cancer risks and non - carcinogenic hazards for sensitive receptors may be required. o Best management practices to be implemented during construction activities such as practices to limit idling and construction emissions, the use of ozone precursor emission controls, implementation of diesel emission reduction plans, and use of California Air Resources Board -certified equipment for pose combustion controls o If a Project is located within an area designated as non -attainment for federal particulate matter 10 microns or less and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less standards, a particulate matter 10 microns or less and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less hot spot analysis shall be prepared based on guidance provided in Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot Spot Analyses in Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less and Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less Non -attainment and Maintenance Areas (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2006). As part of the hot -spot analyses, a project -level conformity determination shall include a finding of whether the Project is a Project of Air Quality Concern. • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area 104 June 2022 1 87 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Program expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.5-36 through 3.5- 37). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts associated with air quality construction emissions depend on the location of new stations and other rail infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of these improvements could require large scale construction activities over an extended period of time. A detailed air quality construction analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location and duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure improvements is unknown at this time. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and is anticipated to result in a decrease in regional and local VMTs. Operation of the Program within the Western Corridor would enhance passenger rail services within an existing high -quality transit corridor. However, there is the potential for generation of air quality criteria pollutants associated with increases in vehicles accessing the existing stations to use the enhanced passenger rail service. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. While implementation of Mitigation Strategies AQ-1 and LU-2 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, impacts may remain significant after mitigation. • Mitigation Strategy AQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific air quality analysis shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. If an 105 June 2022 1 88 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations air quality analysis is warranted at the Tier 2/Project level, the air quality analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The air quality analysis shall include analysis of construction and operational air quality impacts, including identification and analysis of: o Construction equipment to be used and corresponding air quality emissions that could be generated from construction activities. o Construction and operational traffic impacts analysis, including quantification of construction emissions and comparison with South Coast Air Quality Management District significance thresholds. o Sensitive receptors and exposure of those sensitive receptors to air quality emissions during construction and operational activities. If sensitive receptors are located within or adjacent to the Project site, a health risk assessment to assess cancer risks and non - carcinogenic hazards for sensitive receptors may be required. o Best management practices to be implemented during construction activities such as practices to limit idling and construction emissions, the use of ozone precursor emission controls, implementation of diesel emission reduction plans, and use of California Air Resources Board -certified equipment for pose combustion controls o If a Project is located within an area designated as non -attainment for federal particulate matter 10 microns or less and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less standards, a particulate matter 10 microns or less and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less hot spot analysis shall be prepared based on guidance provided in Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot Spot Analyses in Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less and Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less Non -attainment and Maintenance Areas (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2006). As part of the hot -spot analyses, a project -level conformity determination shall include a finding of whether the Project is a Project of Air Quality Concern. • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 106 June 2022 1 89 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities 4.3.4 Biological Resources Special -Status Species Threshold: Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, including designated critical habitat, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by USFWS or CDFW? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.8-83 through 3.8- 84). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on special -status plant and wildlife species depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station locations, which are currently unknown. Special -status plants and wildlife species and habitat that supports these species, including critical habitat, occur in within the Program Corridor. Impacts on special -status plant and wildlife species may result from the removal of vegetation or the placement of new permanent infrastructure improvements during construction activities and could result in a potentially significant impact. Similarly, impacts on special -status plant and wildlife species may result from operation of new stations and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1 through BIO-5 and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on special -status plant and wildlife 107 June 2022 1 90 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations species by identifying resources in the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area and measures to minimize impacts on habitat through worker environmental awareness program training, limiting disturbance areas, controlling non-native and invasive species, and replacing or compensating for habitat loss. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Special -status species o Nesting birds o Wildlife movement o Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat o Jurisdictional waters o Applicable habitat conservation plans o Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to obtain regulatory permits and implement Project -specific mitigation prior to any construction activities. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-2: If completion of the Project -specific biological resources assessment determines that special -status plant species have potential to occur on site, surveys for special -status plants shall be completed prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity of each project (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the 108 June 2022 1 91 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations target species identified in the Project -specific biological resources assessment. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the implementing agency no more than 2 years prior to Project implementation. All special -status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site -specific aerial photograph or topographic map. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the implementing agency for review. If special -status plant species are identified, Mitigation Strategy BIO-3 shall apply. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-3: If federally or state -listed and/or California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species are found during special -status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Strategy BIO-1), the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be redesigned to avoid impacting these plant species where feasible based on coordination with the local jurisdiction and applicable resource agencies. If California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 species are found, the biologist shall evaluate to determine if they meet criteria to be considered special status. If so, the same process as identified for California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species shall apply. If special -status plants species cannot be avoided and would be impacted by the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed, all impacts shall be mitigated for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A restoration plan shall be prepared and submitted to the lead agency and/or the local jurisdiction overseeing the Project for approval. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: o Description of the Project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type) o Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved) o Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values) o Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan) o Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule) o Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports 109 June 2022 1 92 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives (said criteria to include numeric criteria to be selected based on the scale of the restoration effort and the restoration technique used) o An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria o Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation o Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism) • Mitigation Strategy BIO-4: Specific habitat assessment and survey protocol surveys are established for several federally and/or state endangered or threatened species. If the results of the biological resources assessment determine that suitable habitat may be present for any such species, protocol habitat assessments/surveys shall be completed in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits/Project approvals. Alternatively, in lieu of conducting protocol surveys, the implementing agency may choose to assume presence within the Project footprint and proceed with development of appropriate avoidance measures, consultation, and permitting, as applicable. If the target species is detected during protocol surveys, or protocol surveys are not conducted and presence assumed based on suitable habitat, additional coordination shall apply. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-5: Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend worker environmental awareness program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special -status resources that may occur in the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The specifics of this program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identification of the sensitive species and habitats o Description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources o Review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts on biological resources within the work area o Preparation of a fact sheet conveying this information shall for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the Project 110 June 2022 1 93 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Employee documentation associated with worker environmental awareness program attendance and acknowledgment • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Riparian Habitat Threshold: Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by USFWS or CDFW? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.8-84 through 3.8- 85). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on riparian habitats under the Program depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station locations, which are currently unknown. Impacts on riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities may result from the removal of vegetation or the placement of new permanent infrastructure improvements during construction and could result in a potentially significant impact. Similarly, riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities occur within the Program Corridor and impacts may result from operation of new stations and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1 through BIO-5 and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on riparian habitat and other sensitive habitat by identifying resources in the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area and measures to minimize impacts on habitat through worker environmental awareness program training, limiting disturbance areas, controlling non-native and invasive species, and replacing or compensating for habitat loss. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to 111 June 2022 1 94 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations determine whether the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Special -status species o Nesting birds o Wildlife movement o Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat o Jurisdictional waters o Applicable habitat conservation plans o Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to obtain regulatory permits and implement Project -specific mitigation prior to any construction activities. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-2: If completion of the Project -specific biological resources assessment determines that special -status plant species have potential to occur on site, surveys for special -status plants shall be completed prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity of each project (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species identified in the Project -specific biological resources assessment. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the implementing agency no more than 2 years prior to Project implementation. All special -status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site -specific aerial photograph or topographic map. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the implementing agency for review. If special -status plant species are identified, Mitigation Strategy BIO-3 shall apply. 112 June 2022 1 95 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy BIO-3: If federally or state -listed and/or California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species are found during special -status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Strategy BIO-1), the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be redesigned to avoid impacting these plant species where feasible based on coordination with the local jurisdiction and applicable resource agencies. If California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 species are found, the biologist shall evaluate to determine if they meet criteria to be considered special status. If so, the same process as identified for California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species shall apply. If special -status plants species cannot be avoided and would be impacted by the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed, all impacts shall be mitigated for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A restoration plan shall be prepared and submitted to the lead agency and/or the local jurisdiction overseeing the Project for approval. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: o Description of the Project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type) o Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved) o Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values) o Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan) o Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule) o Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports o Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives (said criteria to include numeric criteria to be selected based on the scale of the restoration effort and the restoration technique used) o An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria o Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation 113 June 2022 1 96 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism) • Mitigation Strategy BIO-4: Specific habitat assessment and survey protocol surveys are established for several federally and/or state endangered or threatened species. If the results of the biological resources assessment determine that suitable habitat may be present for any such species, protocol habitat assessments/surveys shall be completed in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits/Project approvals. Alternatively, in lieu of conducting protocol surveys, the implementing agency may choose to assume presence within the Project footprint and proceed with development of appropriate avoidance measures, consultation, and permitting, as applicable. If the target species is detected during protocol surveys, or protocol surveys are not conducted and presence assumed based on suitable habitat, additional coordination shall apply. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-5: Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend worker environmental awareness program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special -status resources that may occur in the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The specifics of this program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identification of the sensitive species and habitats o Description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources o Review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts on biological resources within the work area o Preparation of a fact sheet conveying this information shall for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the Project o Employee documentation associated with worker environmental awareness program attendance and acknowledgment • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study 114 June 2022 1 97 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Threshold: Would the Program interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.8-86 through 3.8- 87). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on wildlife movement corridors depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station locations, which are currently unknown. Construction activities that may occur in the Eastern Section may deter wildlife from entering construction work areas and work occurring near existing crossing structures, which would deter use of these structures. Similarly, operational activities in the Eastern Section may deter wildlife from using existing wildlife movement corridor structures or impeding wildlife movement through an increase in human activity within the area. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy BIO-1 would identify would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from conflicts with wildlife movement corridors through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Special -status species o Nesting birds 115 June 2022 1 98 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Wildlife movement o Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat o Jurisdictional waters o Applicable habitat conservation plans o Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to obtain regulatory permits and implement Project -specific mitigation prior to any construction activities. Conflicts with Local Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Program conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree -preservation policy or ordinance? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.8-87 through 3.8- 89). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts associated with conflict with local policies protecting biological resources depend on the location of infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. The Program Corridor crosses multiple local jurisdictions that may have biological resources policies that may conflict with construction and operation activities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1 and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from conflicts with plans and policies through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has 116 June 2022 1 99 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations no potential to impact biological resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Special -status species o Nesting birds o Wildlife movement o Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat o Jurisdictional waters o Applicable habitat conservation plans o Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to obtain regulatory permits and implement Project -specific mitigation prior to any construction activities. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Conflicts with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Threshold: Would the Program conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.8-89 through 3.8- 90). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 117 June 2022 1 100 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts associated with conflict with an HCP or NCCP depend on the location of infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is located within the Coachella Valley MSHCP and Western Riverside County MSHCP. As such, construction and operation activities may conflict with the provisions of a habitat conservation plan. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies BIO-1 and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from conflicts with adopted habitat conservation plans through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses. • Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Special -status species o Nesting birds o Wildlife movement o Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat o Jurisdictional waters o Applicable habitat conservation plans o Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the 118 June 2022 1 101 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations appropriate resource agency to obtain regulatory permits and implement Project -specific mitigation prior to any construction activities. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.5 Cultural Resources Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.13-57 through 3.13-58). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on historic resources depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities and types of construction activities, which have yet to be determined. The Eastern Section contains known historical resources and could contain additional unknown historical resources. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities have the potential to impact historical resources through ground -disturbing activities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy CUL-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on historical resources through design, further analysis, and the avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to what extent and type of impact on historical resources would occur. Impacts may remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis determines that a non-renewable historical resource would be impacted by the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy CUL-1: During subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary cultural resource screening shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed has the potential to impact cultural resources. If the proposed Tier 2/Project-level improvement has the potential to 119 June 2022 1 102 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations impact cultural resources, a qualified cultural resources specialist shall conduct a cultural resources assessment report to document the existing cultural resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report may include, but not be limited to, the following: o Survey and inventory for archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal cultural resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o Survey and inventory for historic, built -environment resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o All identified cultural resources shall be recorded using the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation forms. o Cultural resources shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and evaluations shall be conducted by individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards in archaeology, history, and/or architectural history. o Documentation of Tier 2/Project-level Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation efforts and site -specific recommendations and input received from Native American tribes including but not limited to: • The provision of Native American monitors on site during ground disturbance activities Identification of procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items Notification and early coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and applicable Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for Tier 2/Project-level fieldwork and surveys occurring within Native American reservation lands. If the resource is found to be a historical resource/historic property, the agency carrying out implementation of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement shall be required to identify and implement site -specific mitigation if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement has a substantial adverse change to the resource, including physical damage, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the property that materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the property that convey its significance for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, or local register. These Tier 2/Project- level site -specific mitigation measures shall be developed in coordination with applicable Section 106 and AB 52 consultation requirements. 120 June 2022 1 103 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.13-58 through 3.13-59). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on archaeological resources depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and types of construction activities, which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section contains known archaeological resources and could contain additional unknown archaeological resources. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities have the potential to impact archaeological resources through ground -disturbing activities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies CUL-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on archaeological resources through design, further analysis, and the avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to what extent and type of impact on archaeological resources would occur. Impacts may remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis determines that a non-renewable archaeological resource would be impacted by the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy CUL-1: During subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary cultural resource screening shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed has the potential to impact cultural resources. If the proposed Tier 2/Project-level improvement has the potential to impact cultural resources, a qualified cultural resources specialist shall conduct a cultural resources assessment report to document the existing cultural resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report may include, but not be limited to, the following: o Survey and inventory for archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal cultural resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o Survey and inventory for historic, built -environment resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. 121 June 2022 1 104 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o All identified cultural resources shall be recorded using the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation forms. o Cultural resources shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and evaluations shall be conducted by individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards in archaeology, history, and/or architectural history. o Documentation of Tier 2/Project-level Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation efforts and site -specific recommendations and input received from Native American tribes including but not limited to: • The provision of Native American monitors on site during ground disturbance activities Identification of procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items Notification and early coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and applicable Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for Tier 2/Project-level fieldwork and surveys occurring within Native American reservation lands. If the resource is found to be a historical resource/historic property, the agency carrying out implementation of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement shall be required to identify and implement site -specific mitigation if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement has a substantial adverse change to the resource, including physical damage, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the property that materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the property that convey its significance for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, or local register. These Tier 2/Project- level site -specific mitigation measures shall be developed in coordination with applicable Section 106 and AB 52 consultation requirements. 4.3.6 Geology and Soils Paleontological Resources Threshold: Would the Program directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-73 through 3.10-74). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 122 June 2022 1 105 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on paleontological resources depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and the types of construction activities, which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section contains multiple areas of high paleontological sensitivity with the potential for subsurface resources to exist, and construction -related ground disturbing activities could destroy previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies PAL -1 and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on paleontological resources through design, further analysis, and the avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to what extent and type of impact on paleontological resources would occur. Impacts may remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis determines that non-renewable paleontological resources would be impacted by the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy PAL -1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the lead agency or agencies shall determine if a paleontological resources assessment report is required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. If required, a paleontological resources assessment report shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: o Geologic context of the region and site and the potential to contain paleontological resources o A records search of institutions holding paleontological collections from the Southern California region o A review of published and unpublished literature for past paleontological finds in the area If the paleontological resources assessment report identifies that paleontological resources are present at the site or if the geologic units to be encountered by the Project are designated as having a high paleontological sensitivity by the applicable local jurisdiction and lead agency, a paleontological resources impact mitigation program shall be prepared and implemented by a professional paleontologist as defined under Secretary of the Department of the Interior Standards. The paleontological resource impact mitigation program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o The qualifications of the principal investigator and monitoring personnel 123 June 2022 1 106 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Construction crew awareness training content, procedures, and requirements o Measures to prevent potential looting, vandalism, or erosion impacts o Location, frequency, and schedule for on -site monitoring activities o Criteria for identifying and evaluating potential fossil specimens or localities o A plan for the use of protective barriers and signs or implementation of other physical or administrative protection measures o Collection and salvage procedures o Identification of an institution or museum willing and able to accept any fossils discovered o Compliance monitoring and reporting procedures • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality Threshold: Would the Program violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-40 through 3.9- 41). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O91(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential construction impacts are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and type of construction activities that would be required. Construction activities could impact water quality by creating debris and pollutants like concrete waste and sediment. Due to the variety of potential construction techniques and numerous waterways and drainages in the Eastern Section, site -specific impacts and associated BMPs to 124 June 2022 1 107 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations minimize impacts cannot be determined at this time. During operation, introducing new impervious surfaces and buildings where they currently do not exist would have the potential to increase the rate and amount of stormwater runoff that could enter receiving waters. The generation of new stormwater sources may contain sediment, nutrients, pesticides, petroleum derivatives, solid wastes, or other chemical and metals that could degrade water quality in the area if not properly managed. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies HWQ-2, HWQ-3, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to violating water quality standards and waste discharge requirements by requiring compliance with applicable regulations and further evaluation during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that construction and operational activities would result in water quality impacts. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. o Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management practices shall be utilized during construction activities. o A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. o A rain event action plan shall be prepared. o A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy HWQ-3: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the operation of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply with the provisions of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal 125 June 2022 1 108 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Separate Storm Sewer System Program. These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Low impact, site design, and source control best management practices shall be identified to be utilized during operational activities. o A water quality management plan shall be prepared that will be implemented and maintained throughout the life of a project and used by property owners, facility operators, tenants, facility employees, and maintenance contractors. These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the governing agencies or local jurisdiction before operation on a project commences. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the Program substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Program may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.9-41 through 3.9- 42). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Although construction activities would require the use of water in site preparation, building preparation, material preparation, and for dust suppression, it is anticipated that construction water supply would not use groundwater supplies for these uses. Upon Program operation, new rail infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to require the use of groundwater supplies during operation or maintenance activities. However, depending on the location and type of amenities identified for new station facilities, there is the potential that groundwater supplies may be needed during operation. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies UTL-1 and LU-3 would minimize, 126 June 2022 1 109 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to groundwater supplies through design and further analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that construction and operational activities would result in groundwater supply impacts. • Mitigation Strategy UTL-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional water supply documentation shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine water supply impacts (including groundwater basin withdrawals) associated with the operation of rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. If required by the identified lead agency or agencies, this documentation shall include, but is not limited to, the following: o A site -specific water supply assessment shall be prepared, per Senate Bill 610 requirements. o Water supply verification letters shall be obtained from the applicable water purveyor per Senate Bill 221 requirements. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.8 Land Use and Planning Divide an Established Community Threshold: Would the Program physically divide an established community? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-37 through 3.2- 38). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts associated with physically dividing an established community depend on the location of new stations, which are currently unknown, and which may require acquisition of parcels within local communities. The stations would be generally located adjacent to the existing tracks, and for that reason, impacts associated with dividing established communities would be 127 June 2022 1 110 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations unlikely. However, construction activities would result in noise, air pollutants, and traffic impacts that may temporarily affect the community. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies LU-1, LU-2, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to dividing an established community through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that land acquisitions would result in community impacts. • Mitigation Strategy LU-1: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine the extent and duration of construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed and develop construction best management practices that shall be implemented by the contractor to reduce noise, air quality, and transportation effects, such as temporary sound barriers and traffic management plans. Depending on the nature of construction activities proposed and the location where construction activities could occur, construction best management practices could include, but are not limited to, the following: o Limit noise -generating construction activities to the hours identified in the applicable local jurisdiction's ordinance and/or policies governing construction activities o Control fugitive dust by watering disturbed areas o Require specifications for construction equipment and idling times • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services 128 June 2022 1 111 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Conflict with an Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Threshold: Would the Program conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Program (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.2-38 through 3.2- 39). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts associated with consistency with plans and policies depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction and operation of new stations may require land acquisition, which may require land use designation changes or amendments. However, a detailed analysis of city -level plans, policies, and regulations cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location of stations is unknown at this time. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with consistency with plans and policies through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there is a land use conflict that cannot be mitigated. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to 129 June 2022 1 112 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.9 Mineral Resources Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Threshold: Would the Program result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-74 through 3.10-75). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on mineral resources and associated plans and policies under the Program are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Mineral resource lands are considered a finite and unique resource; once mineral resource land is converted to other uses, that resource is effectively eliminated. As such, if MRZ mapped lands within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are converted to a transportation use, it would be considered an adverse effect (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 58 through 3.10-59). Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts to known mineral resources through preparation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable, as further analysis may determine that conflicts cannot be mitigated. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 130 June 2022 1 113 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Threshold: Would the Program result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10-76 through 3.10-77). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on mineral resources and associated plans and policies under the Program are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Mineral resource lands are considered a finite and unique resource; once mineral resource land is converted to other uses, that resource is effectively eliminated. As such, if MRZ mapped lands within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are converted to a transportation use, it would be considered an adverse effect (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.10- 58 through 3.10-59). Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts to locally important mineral resource recovery sites through preparation of a land use consistency analysis at the Tier 2/Project level. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable, as further analysis may determine that conflicts cannot be mitigated. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.10 Noise Ambient Noise Levels Threshold: Would the Program result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 131 June 2022 1 114 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.6-35 through 3.6- 36). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potentially significant impacts may occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Potential impacts related to a substantial, temporary increase in ambient noise levels are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and the type of construction activities required, which are unknown at this time. During operation, a permanent increase in ambient noise around new rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities could occur. This increase in ambient noise may result in potentially significant impacts on adjacent noise - sensitive land uses depending on the location of sensitive receptors. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies NOI-1, NOI-2, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with construction and operational noise through design and further analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that there are noise impacts that cannot be mitigated between land uses. • Mitigation Strategy NOI-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific construction noise management plan shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The construction noise management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o A detailed construction schedule correlating to areas or zones of on -site Project construction activity(ies) and the anticipated equipment types and quantities involved. Information will include expected hours of actual operation per day for each type of equipment per phase and indication of anticipated concurrent construction activities on site. o Identification of construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, construction of a temporary noise barrier, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and adjacent sensitive land use receptors. o Identification of construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the event the municipality with jurisdiction receives a complaint, the construction noise management plan shall include guidance to ensure the appropriate corrective actions 132 June 2022 1 115 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are implemented and a report of the action is provided to the reporting party. Appropriate corrective actions may include stricter enforcement of construction schedule, re -location of stationary equipment further from adjacent noise -sensitive receptors, reduction in the number of equipment working simultaneously in proximity to the sensitive receptor, erection of temporary noise barriers, or a combination of the above. • Mitigation Strategy NOI-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific noise and vibration assessment shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The site -specific noise and vibration assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identification of adjacent noise sensitive land uses that would be impacted by construction and operation activities associated with the specific rail infrastructure or station facility. o Identification of construction equipment required to be within 50 feet of existing structures. If construction equipment is required within 50 feet, the assessment will demonstrate that the human annoyance threshold of 78 velocity in decibels (0.032 inches per second peak particle velocity) and structural damage thresholds of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings and 0.12 inches per second peak particle velocity for historic -age buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage is achieved. o Identification of existing noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive land uses. o Identification of any on -site generated noise sources, including generators, mechanical equipment, and trucks and predicted noise levels at property lines from all identified equipment. o Recommended mitigation to be implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), to ensure compliance with the local jurisdiction's noise regulations or ordinances. Noise reduction measures shall include building noise -attenuating walls, reducing noise at the source by requiring quieter machinery or limiting the hours of operation, or other attenuation measures. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by the site -specific noise analyses. • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis 133 June 2022 1 116 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.11 Public Services Fire Protection Services, Police Services, Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities Threshold: Would the Program result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.14-27 through 3.14-28). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts on public services depend on the location of infrastructure improvements, which are currently not known. However, construction activities may result in temporary noise, vibration, and air quality effects that could affect parklands or community facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, as well as in detours that could impact accessibility, travel patterns, and response times for fire and police protection. Construction of infrastructure improvements could result in temporary access disruption to existing community facilities and parks. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy LU-2 would minimize, reduce or, avoid potential impacts on public services through the implementation of a construction management plan; however, impacts could remain potentially significant if avoidance of public service resources is not feasible during the Tier 2/Project-level planning and design phase. 134 June 2022 1 117 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities 4.3.12 Recreation New Recreational Facilities Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.14-30 through 3.14-31). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Although the Program would not include recreational facilities as part of the proposed improvements, there is the potential for the Build Alternative Options to require expansion of recreational facilities in the event that the proposed improvements require a physical take of park property. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies PCS-1 and LU-3 would result in additional 135 June 2022 1 118 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations coordination with agencies to avoid or minimize the potential for parkland impacts; however, impacts could remain potentially significant if avoidance of recreational resources is not feasible during the Tier 2/Project-level planning and design phase. • Mitigation Strategy PCS-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, recreational resources that would be impacted by the site -specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility shall be identified, and any physical take of recreational properties shall be evaluated. Measures to avoid or minimize impacts on recreational properties shall include, but are not limited to, the following: o Selection of rail station locations that avoid recreational resources o Moving equipment and facilities to another located within existing parkland o Planting vegetation to offset removed vegetation or to establish visual or auditory screening • Mitigation Strategy LU 3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.3.13 Transportation Conflict with a Transportation Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Threshold: Would the Program conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.3-59 through 3.3- 60). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potentially significant impacts under the Program are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and rail infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. During construction, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic may be affected due to temporary road closures and detours during 136 June 2022 1 119 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations construction -related activities. Similarly, during operation of the Program, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic may be affected due to permanent road closures. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies TR-1 and LU-2 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts resulting from conflicts with Program plans, ordinances or policies through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable, as further analysis may determine that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses. • Mitigation Strategy TR-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project -specific traffic impact analysis shall be required for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The traffic impact analysis may include, but will not be limited to, the following: o Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: ■ Transportation management plans to mitigate construction -related traffic, including coordination with emergency providers Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo -fly) to minimize disruption to rail operations during construction Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which construction will occur Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes o Analysis of operational -related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of: Roadway network impacts and fair -share mitigation to mitigate impacts • Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, rephrasing, and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and traffic diversion to alternative routes o For station facilities, identification and analysis of: Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at stations • Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, emergency access) 137 June 2022 1 120 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities. 4.3.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.13-60 through 3.13-61). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. 138 June 2022 1 121 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Explanation: Potential impacts depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and types of construction activities, which are currently unknown. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities have the potential to impact TCRs through ground - disturbing activities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy CUL-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on TCRs through design, further analysis, and the avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to what extent and type of impact on TCRs would occur. Impacts may remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis determines that a non-renewable TCR would be impacted by the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy CUL-1: During subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary cultural resource screening shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed has the potential to impact cultural resources. If the proposed Tier 2/Project-level improvement has the potential to impact cultural resources, a qualified cultural resources specialist shall conduct a cultural resources assessment report to document the existing cultural resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report may include, but not be limited to, the following: o Survey and inventory for archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal cultural resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o Survey and inventory for historic, built -environment resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o All identified cultural resources shall be recorded using the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation forms. o Cultural resources shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and evaluations shall be conducted by individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards in archaeology, history, and/or architectural history. o Documentation of Tier 2/Project-level Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation efforts and site -specific recommendations and input received from Native American tribes including but not limited to: • The provision of Native American monitors on site during ground disturbance activities • Identification of procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items 139 June 2022 1 122 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Notification and early coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and applicable Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for Tier 2/Project-level fieldwork and surveys occurring within Native American reservation lands. If the resource is found to be a historical resource/historic property, the agency carrying out implementation of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement shall be required to identify and implement site -specific mitigation if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement has a substantial adverse change to the resource, including physical damage, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the property that materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the property that convey its significance for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, or local register. These Tier 2/Project- level site -specific mitigation measures shall be developed in coordination with applicable Section 106 and AB 52 consultation requirements. Lead -Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resource Threshold: Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.13-61 through 3.13-62). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential impacts depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and types of construction activities, which are currently unknown. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities have the potential to impact TCRs through ground - disturbing activities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategy CUL-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on TCRs through design, further analysis, and the avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to what extent and type of impact on TCRs would occur. Impacts may 140 June 2022 1 123 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis determines that a non-renewable TCR would be impacted by the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility proposed. • Mitigation Strategy CUL-1: During subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary cultural resource screening shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed has the potential to impact cultural resources. If the proposed Tier 2/Project-level improvement has the potential to impact cultural resources, a qualified cultural resources specialist shall conduct a cultural resources assessment report to document the existing cultural resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report may include, but not be limited to, the following: o Survey and inventory for archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal cultural resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o Survey and inventory for historic, built -environment resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. o All identified cultural resources shall be recorded using the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation forms. o Cultural resources shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and evaluations shall be conducted by individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards in archaeology, history, and/or architectural history. o Documentation of Tier 2/Project-level Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation efforts and site -specific recommendations and input received from Native American tribes including but not limited to: • The provision of Native American monitors on site during ground disturbance activities Identification of procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items • Notification and early coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and applicable Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for Tier 2/Project-level fieldwork and surveys occurring within Native American reservation lands. If the resource is found to be a historical resource/historic property, the agency carrying out implementation of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement shall be required to identify and implement site -specific mitigation if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement has a substantial 141 June 2022 1 124 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adverse change to the resource, including physical damage, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the property that materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the property that convey its significance for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, or local register. These Tier 2/Project- level site -specific mitigation measures shall be developed in coordination with applicable Section 106 and AB 52 consultation requirements. 4.3.15 Utilities and Service Systems Relocation or Construction of Facilities Threshold: Would the Program require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-43 through 3.12-44). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: Potential construction impacts are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. There are multiple known utilities within and adjacent to existing ROW and construction of new stations or rail infrastructure improvements may require relocation of utilities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies UTL-1, UTL-2, LU-2, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with utilities through design and further analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that the construction of rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities would result in the relocation of existing utilities or construction of new utilities. • Mitigation Strategy UTL-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional water supply documentation shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine water supply impacts (including groundwater basin withdrawals) associated with the operation of rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. If required by the identified lead agency or agencies, this documentation may include, but is not limited to the following: o Preparation of a site -specific water supply assessment per Senate Bill 610 requirements 142 June 2022 1 125 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o Obtainment of a water supply verification letters from the applicable water purveyor per Senate Bill 221 requirements • Mitigation Strategy UTL-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site -specific utilities report shall be prepared for the rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The utilities report will identify the ability for existing utility infrastructure to serve the Project, additional utility infrastructure needs, and local jurisdiction/utility provider coordination. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following analyses: o Wastewater/Sewer Infrastructure. Identification of existing sewer infrastructure, sewer capacity, required wastewater/sewer relocations, and site -specific wastewater generation estimates o Electrical Infrastructure. Identification of existing electrical infrastructure, electrical capacity, required electrical infrastructure relocations, and site -specific electrical demand estimates o Natural Gas Infrastructure. Identification of existing natural gas infrastructure, required natural gas infrastructure relocations, and site -specific natural gas demand estimates • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities 143 June 2022 1 126 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resource within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. Water Supply Threshold: Would the Program have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Program and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Findings: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.12-44 through 3.12-45). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1).) However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Explanation: New rail infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to require the use of groundwater supplies during operation or maintenance activities. However, depending on the location and type of amenities identified for new station facilities, there is the potential that groundwater supplies may be needed during operation. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies UTL-1, LU-2, and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with water supply through coordination with water providers and through subsequent design and analysis. However, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as further analysis may determine that operational activities would result in water supply impacts. • Mitigation Strategy UTL-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional water supply documentation shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine water supply impacts (including groundwater basin withdrawals) associated with the operation of rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. If required by the identified lead agency or agencies, this documentation may include, but is not limited to the following: o Preparation of a site -specific water supply assessment per Senate Bill 610 requirements o Obtainment of a water supply verification letters from the applicable water purveyor per Senate Bill 221 requirements 144 June 2022 1 127 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project- level improvement being proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project Study Area o Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and community and emergency services o Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus routes in affected communities o Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities in affected communities • Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or environmental resource within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or environmental resources. 4.4 The Use of a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA/CEQA process to complete the environmental review of the Program, under 40 CFR Part 1508.28 and CEQA Guideline Sections 15168 and 15170. Tiering is a staged environmental review process often applied to environmental review for complex transportation projects. This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR complies with NEPA and CEQA, which requires that federal and state agencies analyze a range of reasonable alternatives in an EIS (42 USC Section 4332(c)(iii)) and EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). 145 June 2022 1 128 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations For CEQA purposes, a Program EIR is an EIR that may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related in one of the following ways: a) Geographically; b) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; c) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or d) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in a similar way. A Program EIR enables the lead agency to consider broad environmental implications of development at an early stage in the process, sometimes when the project is still at a conceptual level, recognizing that a series of actions will occur prior to development. Because they are prepared relatively early on, Program EIRs allow greater flexibility in dealing with overall development options, basic environmental issues, and cumulative impacts. The Program EIR identifies and mitigates the effects of the overall program of development to the extent that they are known at this time. The lead agency incorporates feasible mitigation strategies developed in the Program EIR into subsequent actions to implement the program. Requests for approval of subsequent entitlements in the program must be examined in light of the Program EIR to determine whether additional environmental review must be conducted. If the agency finds that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation is required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the Program EIR. However, if a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, additional environmental review would need to be conducted and additional opportunities for public review provided as appropriate under CEQA. Additional environmental review is required for subsequent discretionary approvals requested of the lead agency to implement the program, if, pursuant to section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following circumstances occur: a) Substantial changes are proposed to the project description; b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken (such as new regulatory requirements are adopted relevant to the project); or c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, identifies new or more severe impacts from those identified in the program EIR or if new mitigation measures can be identified to offset impacts of the project. 146 June 2022 1 129 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.5 Findings of Fact As stated above, California PRC Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case RCTC, prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding (see Appendix F of this Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for full mitigation strategy text). RCTC, as the CEQA lead agency, hereby certifies that the Board of Commissioner's has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, identified below, for the Program. The RCTC acknowledges that the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, pursuant to California PRC Section 21000 et seq., CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and that the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR reflects the independent judgment of the RCTC. In certifying the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR under CEQA, the RCTC hereby adopts these CEQA findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations. 4.6 Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts for which Mitigation is Outside RCTC's Responsibility or Jurisdiction Mitigation strategies to mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts from the Program are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not RCTC. Pursuant to California PRC Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2), as to each impact, RCTC, based on the evidence in the record before it, finds that implementation of these mitigation strategies is hereby approved by RCTC, to the extent implementation of the measure strategy is within RCTC's jurisdiction. In the instances in which implementation of the measure strategy is within the jurisdiction of another agency, RCTC finds that the strategy can and should be undertaken by the other public agency. In some cases, one part of a mitigation strategy may be under the jurisdictional control of RCTC, while some other part of the same mitigation strategy may be outside of RCTC's direct control. These situations with a combination of jurisdictional responsibilities are addressed in this subsection. RCTC will request, but cannot compel, implementation of the identified mitigation strategies described in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The impact and mitigation strategy and the facts supporting the determination that mitigation is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and not RCTC, would be determined during subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Notwithstanding the disclosure of these impacts, RCTC elects to approve the Program due to the overriding considerations set forth below in the statement of overriding considerations. 147 June 2022 1 130 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.7 Findings Related to the Relationship Between Short - Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity CEQA requires a review of the balance between short-term uses and long-term productivity of resources within a project area. Potential impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses to the environment include selecting a development option that reduces the ability to pursue other possibilities or committing a piece of land or other resources to a particular use that limits additional uses being performed on the same site. Effects on resources are often characterized as being short term or long term in duration. Impacts that occur only during construction are considered temporary. Impacts that occur within a period of 3 years or less would be considered a short-term use and in excess of 3 years would be considered long term. Construction can create temporary water quality effects and increases in noise, emissions, traffic, and human population that can disturb resources in an area but subside when the work is complete. Long-term effects are related to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, in particular, the consistency of the Program with long-term economic, social, regional, and local planning objectives. These impacts may lead to permanent loss or degradation of resources. As required by PRC Section 21001(g), the short- and long-term effects of the Program under consideration are summarized below. The Program Corridor faces transportation challenges associated with anticipated population growth, constrained travel options, rail service frequency, and a need for increased travel capacity without impacting air quality and natural resources. These challenges are likely to continue in the future, as continued growth in population and employment is expected to generate increased travel demand. In the short term, construction activities would likely increase employment opportunities, as well as locally purchased materials and services. In the long term, proposed improvements would likely increase the frequency and reliability of intercity rail service. Based on the EIR and the entire record before RCTC, RCTC makes the following findings with respect to the Program's balancing of local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity: 1. As the Program is implemented, certain impacts would occur on a short-term level. Such short-term impacts are discussed above. Where feasible, mitigation strategies have been incorporated to mitigate these potential impacts during subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 148 June 2022 1 131 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Implementation of the Program would result in the long-term commitment of resources to implement the Program including water, natural gas, fossil fuels, and electricity. The long- term implementation of the Program would provide economic benefits within the Program Corridor and to Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. The Program would accommodate development of an improved passenger rail service throughout the Program Corridor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, some long-term impacts would result from implementation of the Program. Despite short-term and long-term adverse impacts that could result from implementation of the Program and that would not be reduced to a less -than -significant level even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the short-term and long-term benefits of implementation of the Program as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations justify implementation. 4.8 Summary of Alternatives Considered Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), which states that, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project," FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC prepared an Alternatives Analysis (AA) (RCTC 2016) to evaluate alternatives for implementation of passenger rail service within the Program Corridor. The 2016 AA Report identified six potential route alternatives and service options for the Program Corridor based on the Purpose and Need statement, review of previous studies, and comments from agencies and the public. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, various combinations of four existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were evaluated. For the Eastern Section, all potential route alternatives utilized UP's Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio.' Table 4-1. Route Alternatives Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis Route Eastern Western Alternative Alignment Description Terminusa Terminus Mode Rail Lines 1 Los Angeles -Indio Rail Service via Fullerton/Riverside Indio LAUS Intercity rail BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision + UP Yuma Subdivision During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, the City of Indio was proposed to be the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. Therefore, the City of Coachella was not included in the 2016 AA Report. However, the City of Coachella is located within the 15 mile Indio station catchment area studied in the 2016 AA Report. Based on comments received during the formal scoping period, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC extended the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor beyond Indio to include the adjoining City of Coachella. The extension of the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor would not affect the conclusions reached in the 2016 AA Report, as only one route alternative in the Eastern Section (between Colton and Indio) was evaluated in the 2016 AA Report: the existing UP rail line. 149 June 2022 1 132 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Route Alternative Alignment Description Eastern Terminusa Western Terminus Mode Rail Lines 2 Los Angeles -Indio Rail Service via Pomona/Riverside Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Los Angeles Subdivision + UP Yuma Subdivision 3 Los Angeles -Indio Rail Service via Pomona/Ontario Airport Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Alhambra Subdivision + UP Yuma Subdivision 4-A Los Angeles -Indio Rail Service via Montclair/Rialto Indio LAUS Intercity rail SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision + UP Yuma Subdivision 4-B Los Angeles -Indio Rail Service via Montclair/San Bernardino Indio LAUS Intercity rail SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision + UP Yuma Subdivision 5 Los Angeles -Indio Rail Service via Montclair/San Bernardino Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Alhambra + SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision + UP Yuma Subdivision Source: RCTC 2016 Notes: a During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. AA=Alternatives Analysis; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad As stated in Section 2.1 (Alternatives Selection Process) of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p.2-8), four screening criteria were relied on during the process of evaluating and selecting reasonable and feasible route alternatives to carry forward in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. These screening criteria included achieving the Program's Purpose and Need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), which states that, "Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts," five of the six route alternatives (Route Alternatives 2, 3, 4-A. 4-B, and 5) were removed from consideration in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as follows: 150 June 2022 1 133 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Route Alternative 2. Coarse level screening during the AA analysis concluded that Route Alternative 2 be eliminated from further study. The route alternative is a high density freight line, with substantial sections of single track that would require costly expansion projects to create the additional capacity needed to reliably operate the proposed passenger rail service and mitigate impacts on freight rail capacity and reliability. Route Alternative 2 would require construction of up to 10 miles of additional second main line track, with potentially sections of third main line track to accommodate Metrolink commuter services. Route Alternative 2 would only serve a population of approximately 4.14 million people (which is low when compared to Route Alternative 1, which would serve a population of approximately 11.63 million people) and require over 666 acres of land acquisitions, resulting in increased environmental and land use conflicts. In addition, Route Alternative 2 would require construction of infrastructure in various locations to hold freight trains waiting for space to enter BNSF's San Bernardino Subdivision or the Alameda corridor. The route also experiences freight train congestion and serves freight terminals where trains enter and exit at low speeds, which have the potential to affect passenger train travel reliability. Therefore, Route Alternative 2 was determined to not meet the Program's Purpose and Need, which aims to provide a competitive and attractive public transit mode to meet increasing travel demand within the Program Corridor through the 2040 horizon year. From an environmental constraint perspective, during the coarse level screening process conducted as part of the AA Report process, it was determined that additional ROW and modifications to existing track infrastructure resulting in new or expanded bridges over waterways would require intensive coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and other responsible resource agencies. In the event that a new or expanded bridge is needed at the Santa Ana River along the Los Angeles Subdivision between the cities of Riverside and Jurupa Valley, mitigation could be difficult to obtain since the route crosses critical habitat for LBV and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (both are listed as a Federal and State endangered species). When compared to other Route Alternatives that did not cross through critical habitat for endangered species, Route Alternative 2 was identified as potentially having greater environmental impacts than other route alternatives considered. To accommodate additional passenger trains on Route Alternative 2 without degrading freight train capacity, additional infrastructure would likely be required to enable overtakes of freight trains, meet/pass events for the proposed Coachella Valley passenger trains and Metrolink commuter traffic, which include potential portions of third track, and adequate windows for track maintenance. Obstacles to constructing an additional main track between Riverside and Pomona include a lack of available ROW between Riverside and Arlington, where the alignment descends an escarpment and is constrained by a quarry. An additional 151 June 2022 1 134 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations bridge over the Santa Ana River would also be needed to supplement the existing single- track concrete arch structure. Given the extensive sections of single main line track and presence of heavy unscheduled freight train traffic, the potential for introducing travel unreliability, slow projected running time, high technical complexity, and high cost for expanding capacity, Route Alternative 2 was determined to be technically and economically infeasible and was eliminated from further study. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p.2-9). • Route Alternative 3. Coarse level screening concluded that Route Alternative 3 be eliminated from further study. The route alternative is a high density freight line, with substantial sections of single track that would require costly expansion projects to create the additional capacity needed to reliably operate the proposed passenger rail service and mitigate impacts on freight rail capacity and reliability. Route Alternative 3 would require construction of up to 39 miles of additional second main line track. In addition to the financial feasibility of constructing up to 39 miles of additional second main line track, property acquisition would require displacement of many businesses and residents, particularly where the route passes through highly urbanized areas. Route Alternative 3 would only serve a population of approximately 4.41 million people (which is low when compared to Route Alternative 1, which would serve a population of approximately 11.63 million people) and require over 625 acres of land acquisitions, resulting in increased environmental and land use conflicts (2016 Alternatives Analysis, p. 109). The route also experiences freight train congestion and serves freight terminals where trains enter and exit at low speeds, which have the potential to affect passenger train travel reliability. Therefore, Route Alternative 3 was determined to not meet the Program's Purpose and Need, which primarily aims to provide a competitive and attractive public transit mode to meet increasing travel demand within the Program Corridor through the 2040 horizon year. Additionally, given the extensive sections of single main line track and presence of heavy unscheduled freight train traffic, the potential for introducing travel unreliability, slow projected running time, high technical complexity, and high cost for expanding capacity, Route Alternative 3 was determined to be economically and technically infeasible, and was eliminated from further study. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p.2-9.) • Route Alternative 4-A. Route Alternative 4-A would require complex connecting tracks at San Bernardino and Colton, additional main line track, and a major new flyover across the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision in San Bernardino. The infrastructure required under Route Alternative 4-A would be costly and impact adjacent urban areas with substantial property acquisitions and displacements particularly where the route passes through highly urbanized areas. In addition, while Route Alternative 4-A had the shortest projected travel time, it also had lower ridership projections than Route Alternative 1. Therefore, Route 152 June 2022 1 135 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Alternative 4 was determined to not meet the Program's Purpose and Need, which primarily aims to provide a competitive and attractive public transit mode to meet increasing travel demand within the Program Corridor through the 2040 horizon year. Additionally, Route Alternative 4-A did not meet the identified technical and economic criteria. Route Alternative 4-A was determined to be neither reasonable nor feasible. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p .2-11.) • Route Alternative 4-B. Route Alternative 4-B did not achieve the Program's Purpose and Need because it would not offer a competitive travel time due to an additional 20 to 30 minutes required for a mid -route station stop at San Bernardino. Route Alternative 4-B did not meet the technical criteria because it would require a complex connecting track at Colton, additional main line track, and a potential new flyover across the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision in San Bernardino, which would be costly to implement, and which would impact adjacent urban areas. Route Alternative 4-B did not meet the economic criterion because of the excessive capital cost requirements. In addition, Route Alternative 4-B, along with Route Alternative 5, had the lowest projected ridership. As such, Route Alternative 4-B was determined to not meet the Program Purpose and Need, and was eliminated from further study. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p .2-12.) • Route Alternative 5. Route Alternative 5 did not achieve the Program's Purpose and because it would not offer a competitive travel time due to an additional 20 to 30 minutes required for a mid -route station stop at San Bernardino and slower track speed at UP's Alhambra Subdivision. In addition, Route Alternative 5 would require a complex connecting track at Colton, including a potential new flyover across the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision in San Bernardino, which would be costly to implement, and which would impact adjacent urban areas and result in substantial property acquisitions. Route Alternative 5 did not meet the economic criterion because of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 5 would cost more than Alternative 4-B without providing additional ridership benefits. This alternative had the longest projected travel time of the route alternatives, and, along with Route Alternative 4-B, has the lowest projected ridership. Route Alternative 5 was determined to not meet the Program Purpose and Need and was eliminated from further study. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p .2-12.) As the CEQA lead agency, RCTC identified Route Alternative 1 as the proposed CEQA Program (also known under CEQA as the proposed Project) to be carried forward in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. In addition to meeting the applicable criteria, Route Alternative 1 would also allow for the use of the existing shared use agreement and memorandum of understanding between RCTC and the railroad stakeholders, which provides for available passenger rail capacity along the Program 153 June 2022 1 136 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Corridor. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, RCTC has an existing shared use agreement with BNSF that pairs staged infrastructure improvement projects to available passenger train slots on the route (Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company and RCTC 1992). In addition, an memorandum of understanding between SBCTA, UP, and BNSF associated with the Colton Crossing Railroad Grade Separation Project provides for the conversion of four non -revenue passenger train movements to revenue train movements in the segment of the San Bernardino Subdivision between Riverside and San Bernardino (SBCTA, UP, and BNSF 2010). Under these existing agreements, RCTC has the ability to commit four available train slots between LAUS and Colton for the proposed passenger rail service without constructing additional rail capacity improvement projects in the Western Section. However, if the proposed passenger rail service does not occur, RCTC could commit these slots to other intercity passenger or commuter rail services in the Western Section of the Program Corridor. Under the existing agreements, passenger/commuter rail frequencies in the busiest part of the Western Section of the Program Corridor, between Los Angeles and Fullerton, are currently at capacity. However, specific capacity improvement projects planned or in construction along Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section of the Program Corridor would create additional passenger/train commuter train slots between Los Angeles and Fullerton by 2024 or sooner. RCTC has the ability to commit four of these additional slots to the proposed passenger rail service without the need to reduce existing passenger/commuter rail services by an equivalent number of frequencies between Los Angeles and Fullerton. The additional passenger/commuter slots associated with the near term capacity improvement projects planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton would also support other service increases in commuter and intercity passenger rail traffic that are anticipated to occur regardless of the proposed passenger rail service implementation. The capacity improvement projects that are planned or in construction are programmed for completion before the proposed passenger rail service would start. Therefore, infrastructure associated with the capacity improvement projects is considered part of baseline conditions in the Western Section of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Colton. Although only one route alternative was carried forward, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR further included three reasonable, feasible Build Alternative Options for implementation of the major Program elements (e.g., speed, station stop pattern/service options, and frequency) associated with Route Alternative 1. The three refined Build Alternative Options carried forward for consideration in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR did not change in the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Chapter 3 of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR (Appendix A) describes the Program alternatives advanced for further study, which include a No Build Alternative and three Build Alternatives Options (Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2, and Build Alternative Option 3). 154 June 2022 1 137 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The No Build Alternative consists of the continuation of the existing Amtrak passenger train route, stations, and service within the Program Corridor. The No Build Alternative also includes all committed improvements (e.g., projects with dedicated or obligated funding) to the existing intercity passenger rail system, the highway/freeway system, and other modes of transportation available to the public (e.g. intercity bus services and aviation services) within the Tier 1/Program Study Area. The three Build Alternative Options are: • Build Alternative Option 1 —Build Alternative Option 1 assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the City of Coachella. No additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required within the Western Section of the Program Corridor and existing stations in Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be utilized and up to up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley Area, the City of Indio, and the City of Coachella. A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along the entire Eastern Section of the Program Corridor from Colton to Coachella. • Build Alternative Option 2 —Build Alternative Option 2 assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the City of Indio. No additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required within the Western Section of the Program Corridor and existing stations in Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be utilized and up to up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley Area, and the City of Indio. A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along the entire Eastern Section of the Program Corridor from Colton to Indio. • Build Alternative Option 3 —Build Alternative Option 3 assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the City of Indio. No additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required within the Western Section of the Program Corridor and existing stations in Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be utilized and up to up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley Area, and the City of Indio. A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor from Colton to the proposed Mid -Valley Station Area. Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would still cause one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be 155 June 2022 1 138 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations avoided or lessened to below a level of significant, the lead agency must determine if there is a project alternative that is both environmentally superior and feasible. An alternative may be "infeasible" if it fails to achieve the most basic project objectives identified within the EIR. Further, "feasibility" under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project "based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" of a project. Based on the evaluation presented in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the No Build Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would not result in any new construction related effects or require new land acquisition that may be required for rail infrastructure. However, the No Build Alternative would not meet the Program's Purpose and Need, nor would it result in the benefits associated with the Build Alternative Option 1, such as reduced air quality emissions, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved travel options and reliability. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) also states that where the No Project (No Build) Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative. RCTC considered the Build Alternative Options, as well as the No Build Alternative, and weighed and balanced the environmental impacts of each alternative. Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 are anticipated to result in fewer reductions of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions than Build Alternative Option 1. Based on the analyses documented in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, RCTC determined that the adverse environmental impacts associated with the Build Alternative Option 1 would be similar to those associated with Build Alternative Option 2 and 3, while benefits to ridership and communities would be higher under Build Alternative Option 1 than under Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, p .7-3 through 7-11.) Based on the evaluation of reasonable and feasible alternatives (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Chapter 2, Alternatives), RCTC has determined that, while all three Build Alternative Options are reasonable, feasible, and meet the Purpose and Need of the Program, Build Alternative Option 1 would result in the least overall impacts to the human and natural environment while fulfilling the Purpose and Need of the Program to a greater extent than Build Alternative Options 2 and 3, and is therefore environmentally preferable. 4.9 Growth Inducement CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which a project could be growth inducing. CEQA also requires a discussion of ways in which a project may remove obstacles to growth, as well as ways in which a project may seta precedent for future growth. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2, subdivision (d), identifies a project as growth inducing if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. 156 June 2022 1 139 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations As documented in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR (Draft EIS/EIR, p. 6-1), substantial growth impacts could be manifested through the provision of infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. The four -county region of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties (which the Program Corridor crosses) grew by more than 7.4 million people between 1970 and 2010. In 2010, the region was home to approximately 46 percent of the population in the State of California. Los Angeles County has the largest population in the four -county region, followed by Orange County. Growth patterns between 1970 and 2010 showed that Riverside County and San Bernardino County grew at an average annual rate of 4.0 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, while Los Angeles County and Orange County grew annually by 0.8 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. Population projections prepared by the California Department of Finance forecast that the population within the four -county region will continue to grow between 2018 and 2050; however, the annual growth rate is anticipated to slow to 0.5 percent annually for the region as a whole. There are higher annual growth rates forecast for San Bernardino County (1.0 percent) and Riverside County (1.1 percent) compared with Los Angeles County (0.3 percent) and Orange County (0.4 percent). Despite a forecast reduction in growth rates, the four -county region is still projected to grow approximately 17 percent overall between 2018 and 2050, for a total population of approximately 21.3 million people in 2050. By then, the four -county region will account for approximately 43 percent of the state population. These growth forecasts suggest that the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties would support a substantial portion of the state's population in 2050. Growth in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is expected with or without the Build Alternative Options. Two additional round-trip daily trains would serve existing stations at LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside in the Western Section. No new stations or improvements to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. Therefore, the Build Alternative Options are not expected to induce additional growth in the Western Section. San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have experienced population, housing, and employment growth over the past several decades. As discussed in Section 3.2, Land Use and Planning, of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, there is a planned 18 percent increase in residential uses in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Between 2010 and 2035, population and housing in Riverside County are each anticipated to increase by approximately 63 percent; however, employment is expected to grow faster than housing (County of Riverside 2003). Similarly, San Bernardino County 157 June 2022 1 140 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations is expecting an increase in population of 630,000 people, an increase of more than 230,000 homes, and 316,000 additional jobs by 2040. Because Riverside County and San Bernardino County supply a portion of the labor pool for the Los Angeles -Orange County metropolitan area, daily round-trip service and new station areas may induce additional housing growth in the new station catchment areas. Build Alternative Option 1 proposes up to five new potential stations within Loma Linda/Redlands, the Pass Area, the Mid - Valley area, and the Cities of Indio and Coachella. Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 propose up to four new potential stations within the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid -Valley, and the City of Indio. New stations could also introduce employment opportunities in station areas and catalyze investment in transit -oriented development, including additional housing and business. 4.10 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2, subdivision(d) provides the following direction for the discussion of irreversible changes: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The Program would use both renewable and nonrenewable natural resources for construction and operation. The Program would use nonrenewable fossil fuels in the form of oil and gasoline during construction and operation. Other nonrenewable and slowly -renewable resources consumed as a result of Program implementation would include, but not necessarily be limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water. However, these resources are necessary for construction of the Program and, as such, their use would not be wasteful or inefficient. Additionally, the Program would not result in a significant commitment of fossil fuels that would make their nonuse or removal likely. Rather, the Program, which proposes to implement passenger rail between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley, would result in reduced fossil fuel usage associated with the Program -related mode shift from automobiles to passenger rail and associated decrease in vehicle miles traveled, over time (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp 3.5-27 through 3.5-29). The Program would not involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from potential environmental accidents associated with operation. The Program would implement intercity passenger rail between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley and is not anticipated to release 158 June 2022 1 141 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations hazardous materials into the environment. Construction and operation of the Program would utilize chemical substances common to urban construction activities that do not generally pose a significant hazard to the public or environment. Moreover, Mitigation Strategies HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would minimize, reduce or, avoid potential impacts resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction by requiring further evaluation into hazardous materials in the area, preparation of a Project -specific hazardous materials management program and a health and safety plan, and by ensuring compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis (Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, pp. 3.11-55 through 3.11-58). The change in land use as a result of implementation of the Program from undeveloped land to urban/transportation use would represent a long-term commitment to urbanization, since the potential for developed land to be reverted back to undeveloped land uses is highly unlikely. This would involve the conversion, and potential loss, of habitat and productive agricultural and grazing land to accommodate the new transportation infrastructure and stations in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. These environmental changes would be irreversible. Chapter 3 of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates the significance of these impacts under CEQA and effects under N E PA. Overall, while the Program would require the commitment of nonrenewable resources, it is expected that residents and businesses in the region would benefit from the implementation of regional passenger rail in a corridor that does not currently have intercity passenger rail service, and, as such, the commitment of these resources is necessary and justified. As stated above in Section 2.2 (Program Purpose and Objectives), the Program would: 1. provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with a public transportation service that offers more convenient, reliable, and competitive trip times, better station access, and more frequency than currently available public transportation services; 2. provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules; 3. provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an affordable transportation service; 4. serve a range of trip purposes traveling between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley, particularly including business and personal trips; 5. improve regional travel opportunities between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley for individuals without private vehicles; 159 June 2022 1142 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6. serve the expected population growth in the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley; and, 7. assist regional agencies in meeting air pollution and GHG emission reduction targets as mandated in state and federal regulations. 160 June 2022 1 143 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California PRC and Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, RCTC has balanced the benefits of the Program against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Program. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, if the benefits of the Program outweigh the Program's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Program to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Strategies identified in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and having weighed the benefits of the Program against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, RCTC has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Program separately and individually outweigh the Program's potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable. RCTC thus adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations: 1. The Program would provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with a public transportation service that offers more convenient, reliable, and competitive trip times, better station access, and more frequency than currently available public transportation services; 2. The Program would provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules; 3. The Program would provide travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an affordable transportation service; 4. The Program would serve a range of trip purposes traveling between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley, particularly including business and personal trips; 5. The Program would improve regional travel opportunities between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley for individuals without private vehicles; 6. The Program would serve the expected population growth in the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley; and, 7. The Program would assist regional agencies in meeting air pollution and GHG emission reduction targets as mandated in state and federal regulations. 8. The Program would result in socioeconomic and community benefits including the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs and temporary increases in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the construction activities would take place. Future construction 161 June 2022 1 144 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations activities would result in job growth in the construction industry, as well as job growth in the retail trade sector due to spending on goods and services by the construction workforce. The long-term operation of the enhanced passenger rail system proposed as part of the Program would result in the creation of direct jobs, as well as additional indirect and induced jobs. The majority of permanent jobs resulting from long-term operation and maintenance activities of the Program would be in the economic sector of transit and ground passenger transportation, which includes jobs related to train operations, dispatching, maintenance of equipment, and maintenance of infrastructure. In the long term, the Program is also anticipated to result in job creation due to improvements to regional accessibility. For example, improvements in accessibility can result in long-term dynamic economic effects, such as enhanced labor market accessibility, increased business travel and transactions, direct transport cost savings, improved business and worker productivity, and support of tourism and other important service sectors requiring patron accessibility. 9. Long-term socioeconomic benefits associated with the Program would be realized within the counties and cities that the Program Corridor crosses. Enhanced passenger rail service within the Program Corridor would provide additional connections to major economic generators within the Program Corridor, including the Cities of Los Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs, and Coachella. The improved access would likely result in increased economic activity within cities directly served by the passenger rail, particularly near stations. 10. Improved access within the region and affected cities is anticipated to have social benefits including better access to jobs, community amenities, and facilities. Improving regional mobility and connections between economic and employment centers, education centers, other cultural and recreational activity centers, and to shops and services adjacent to station areas would enhance socioeconomic conditions throughout the region. 11. Connecting urban areas and communities by improving access and mobility would expand employment opportunities over the larger geographic area, benefitting both employers (by expanding the labor pool) and employees (by offering more choices regarding where to live and work). Passenger rail service would also offer travel time reductions for transit patrons and regional commuters by reducing congestion by shifting trips from the roadway system to the passenger rail system. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the Program can be found in the preceding findings, which are herein incorporated by reference; in the Program itself; and in the record of proceedings as defined above. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below 162 June 2022 1 145 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Program outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval. RCTC finds that the Program, as conditionally approved, will have the economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits for residents, businesses, and visitors associated with a safe, reliable, and convenient intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor with the capability to meet the future mobility needs. These benefits substantially outweigh the Program's unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 163 June 2022 1 146 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As referenced above in the findings, a MMRP has been prepared for the Program and is to be adopted concurrently with these findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to PRC Section 21O81(a)(1). The MMRP is a separate stand-alone document (Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR — Appendix E). A record of the MMRP will be maintained at Riverside County Transportation Commission's offices, located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. 164 June 2022 1 147 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page is intentionally blank. 165 June 2022 1 148 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents California PRC Section 21082.6(a)(2) requires that RCTC, as CEQA lead agency, specify the location and custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision has been based. The Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and all supporting documentation can be found at the following locations: • RCTC's website: https://www.rctc.orq/projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor- rail-corridor-service-project/ • FRA's website: https://railroads.dot.qov/environment/environmental-reviews/coachella-valley- san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-investment-plan In addition, a record of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and associated appendices will be maintained at Riverside County Transportation Commission's offices, located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. RCTC has relied on all of the documents contained within the record of proceedings in reaching its decision on the Program. 166 June 2022 1 149 Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page is intentionally blank. 167 June 2022 1 150 ATTACHMENT 3 LOS ANGELES (Comment Letter) From: Howard Hoffenberg, Esq. <howardh@ipcounselor.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:01 PM To: CVRaiI <CVRail@rctc.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] July 13, 2022 9:30 a.m Hearing on EIS/EIR CV -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Dear RCTC Objection is made to holding the hearing at 9:30 am, as opposed to the middle of the afternoon. An early morning hearing makes attendance impractical for those living in the Coachella Valley. By this email herein is communicated an objection to EIS/EIR and to its approval for entry into the record of the July 13, 2022 9:30 a.m. Hearing. Not accounted for by EIS/EIR is the harm to the biological, economic and physical environment in the Coachella Valley from the rail line being used for "body dumping," a colloquial phrase. The rail line will be used to transport and relocate, i.e., "dump," from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley street dwellers, alcoholic and drug abusers, criminals, chronic unemployed and mentally disordered. The Coachella Valley, especially Palm Springs and Indio, does not need more street dwellers. From listening to the buzz on the rail line, a primary motivation and objective by supporters of the rail line, although not openly publicly spoken, is to transport and relocate, i.e., "dump," from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley street dwellers, alcoholic and drug abusers, criminals, chronic unemployed and mentally disordered. The EIS/EIR is deficient and not approvable. Respectfully, Howard Hoffenberg Attorney, Chemist 8s Biochemist 310-670-5825 * 760-347-3470 IP and Business Law Offices of HOWARD L. HOFFENBERG, ESQ. 168 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90024 310-670-5825 RIVERSIDE 74-710 Highway 111, Suite 102 Palm Desert, California 92260 760-347-3470 office@ipcounselor.com * www.ipcounselor.com BH5779 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. 169 RIVERSIDE RCTC COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration COACHELLA VALLEY - SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE Program Environmental Document and Service Development Plan Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Presentation Outline Introductions Project Overview Environmental Review Process Summary of Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Resolution to Approve Project and Tier 1 Effort Program Overview - Study Area Where is the Program Study Area? Proposed Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Rail Service Los An, -les ni• Stati• Los An -les CiV «oUN v Not walk 4iPT Long Beac \.i Pomona Sir Montclair „_Fily Orange Ria to Fontana Colton Ontario Passenger Rail Service Studied Lake "- Arrowhead San Bernardino rside Moreno Valley Running Springs ;ia)AI:J' Loma Linda Redlands rte` ucaipa (alimesa Cherry Valley Beaumont Sannio� Pas Area w INi5 C L.I;Jr'JLl4 i ___S, Morongo Valley SAN GORGQNIO PASS . / Desert Hot Springs • Cathedral M\ Rancho Mirage Palm Desert LEGEND - Preferred Route - Existing Station - Potential Station Area Thousand Palms COACHELLA Mid Valley VALLEY Indio Indian Wells La Quinta Coacl, Ila Thermal Mecca Two round trips per day between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley Up to six potential stations east of Colton Project Process Bringing Momentum to Deliver Daily Rail Service to Coachella Valley 1991-2013 RCTC completed additional p feasibility studies 1991 1 RCTC completed the first study that evaluated round trips between Los Angeles and Indio Alternatives Analysis 1 Report completed f 2013 2015 2016 FRA PRCIP grant awarded to Caltrans and RCTC for Service Development Plan and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR oc 2021 Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR released to the public ®Anticipated approval of Service Development Plan 1 2022 ®Anticipated approval of Final Tier 1/ Program EIS/EIR Project Process Where are we in the process? 0 N Alternatives Analysis 1 u Program -Level (Tier 1) EIS/EIR & Service Development Plan L`. Conceptual Engineering & Project -Level (Tier 2) Environmental 1 Analyses 1 cu Li_ Final Design & Construction & Operations Service Development Plan Identifies operational feasibility, ridership, costs Rail modeling: 9o% Passenger Trains On Time Minimal Freight Delay More track capacity needed to keep passenger trains on time (Triple Track) Need a passing track over the hill for passenger trains 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 loon 500 0 COLTON 24 miles 1,626 ft. climb BEAUMONT Passenger Train 1 hour, 9 minutes faster 1:304 2:39 52 miles 2,671 ft. climb COACHELLA The Hill Model Example Passenger Train 1 hour, 9 minutes faster ► 1:36 ► 2:45 0 Prototype Passenger Train 0 Prototype Freight Train Alternatives Considered The Program -Level (Tier 1) Draft EIS/EIR includes the analysis of: Loma -Gfaq Terrace Moreno Valley Sun City Canyon Lake Lake Elsinore Yu1 aipa Cahmesa • Two terminus options • One reduced triple track option 19 Bei _, National Forest SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Cherry Valley Beaumont a RIVERSIDE COUNTY Banning pass Area San Jacinto Hemet Valle Vista Cabazon - San Bernardino National Forest Springs Station Paha Springs Cathedral City Aqua Caliente Casino 0 Desert Hot Springs EASTERN SECTION LJ `i New Potential Station Areas (with 6 stations) 1 500 -foot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline Non -Station Areas 800 -foot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline Existing Union Pacific Railroad Existing Stations Utilized for Proposed Rail Service Joshua Tree National Park ▪ 1,,i Thousand Palms (Build Alternative Option 3 terminus of 3rd Track Rancho Mirage Santa Rosa -San Jacinto Mountains National Monutnnent I-1 Palm Desert �*� , Indio r-, ' a M T Coacher r Alternatives Considered The Program -Level (Tier 1) Draft EIS/EIR includes the analysis of: Daily Train Trips Eastern Terminus # of Stations East of Colton New Third Track in Eastern Section No Build None N/A 0 N/A Option #1 Two round trips Coachella 6 Colton to Coachella Option #2 Two round trips Indio 5 Colton to Indio Option #3 Two round trips Indio 5 Colton to approx. Mid Valley Benefits No Build Saves Money Does not address transportation needs Option #1 Best Addresses transportation needs Maximizes access with 6 Stations Keeps passenger and freight trains on time Most Expensive Most Impacts Option #2 Addresses transportation needs Keeps passenger and freight trains on time Reduced station access Expensive with minor cost savings Slightly fewer impacts Option #3 Cost savings - 12 miles of reduced triple track Reduced likelihood of keeping trains on time The Environmental Review Process Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation October 2016 1 Draft Tier i/Program EIS/EIR October 2016 - May 2021 1 Public Review Period May 21, 2021 - July 6, 2021 1 Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR July 2021 - June 2022 Available June 9, 2022 Decision on the Program .... c / RCTC, FRA, and Caltrans Solicit Input On Scope of Draft EIS/EIR Scoping Meetings October 12, 13, 17, 2016 RCTC, FRA, and Caltrans Solicit Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Draft EIS/EIR Public Hearings June 22 & 26, 2021 FRA issues NEPA Record of Decision June 2, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING July 13, 2022 Environmental Tiering TIER Regional Context Broad areas of potential effects • Train operations and routes • Infrastructure improvements Los Angeles Union Station Cotton p� R ,vcnide 0 Palm Springs Coachella . . *'w lwi a:twrwlr�ir� � t • so TIER 2), Project -level Site -specific impacts • Rail infrastructure • Station locations Environmental Tiering What Does Tier 1 Deliver? Program Level Impacts (800-15ooft Study Area from tracks and station) Identifies environmental risks/challenges to further study and mitigate No Environmental Clearance for actual construction Western Section - 600 -foot Study 0 Area from either side of the railroad centerline Coachella Valley Cathedra., Mld-Valley Station Area Rancho Mirage Palm Desert La Ouinta Eastern section - Potential station Coacnella valley range -toed lizard Area: 1,500 -foot Study Area from Critical Habitat either side of the railroad centerline Eastern Section - 800 -foot Study ;� Coach site Valley milk -vetch Critical 0 Area from either side of the railroad centerline Coastal California gnatcatcher Cntical Habitat { I Least Lien's vireo critical Habitat Isle Santa Ana sucker Cntmal Southwestern willow flycatcher Cnttcal Habitat -. South Coast Missing Linkages I— [ds419) Cathedral City Mid -Valley Station Area • Randle Mirage • • Palm Desert • • Indio Station Area La Otint Eastern Section - Potential Station ,) Area- 1,500 -toot Study Area from either side of the railroad centerline Eastern Section - 800 -foot Study Q Area from either side of the railroad centerline Western Section - 600 -loot Study 0 Area from either side of the railroad centerline ■ Fire Station Ifi Educational Facility Healthcare Facility MI Local Park or Trail ■ Law Enforcement Facility State or Regional Park IN Local Emergency Operations Center -n- Santa Rosa -San Jacinto Mountains • Place of Worstup National Monumnent --- Pacific Crest Trail Summary of Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS ANALYZED Land Use and Planning Transportation Visual and Aesthetic Resources Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Noise and Vibration Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources Biological Resources Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Utilities and Energy Cultural Resources Parklands and Community Services Safety and Security Socioeconomics and Communities Affected Cumulative Effects Environmental Justice Section 4(f) and 6(f) Draft EIS/EIR Public Outreach 11 Stakeholder & Agency Briefings 2 Virtual Public Hearings • vqk vor!rd 3,226 Page Views rctc.org/cvrail 504 Comments Received Notification Efforts -English & Spanish tial4 • 9 Email Notices • 2 News Releases • The Point Blog Posts • 22 Social Media Posts • Project Website • Video Campaign • 11 Print/Online Ads • Geofencing Ads 1 Number of Comment Submissions Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR Agencies Number of Comments Contained within Comment Letters Percentage of Comment Letters that Expressed General Support for the Program 9 62 78% Organizations 1 Individuals 15 283 307 42 —400 —504 73% 82% 82% 1 Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR Agencies -AMU Organizations San Bemardino County Transportation Authority (regulations.gov) The Gardens on El Paseo (regulations.gov) City of Colton (regulations.gov) Visit Greater Palm Spring (regulations.gov) San Bemardino County (regulations.gov) Empire Polo Club (regulations.gov) City of Coachella (regulations.gov) Escape Room Palm Springs (regulations.gov) City of Redlands (Letter and regulations.gov) Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada (regulations.gov) United States Environmental Protection Agency (Letter) Spotlight VIP App (regulations.gov) City of Calimesa (Letter) Greater Palm Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau (regulations.gov) City of Indio (Letter) PRA Business Events (regulations.gov) California Highway Patrol (Letter, submitted to OPR) Gelato Granucci (regulations.gov) The Lautner Compound (regulations.gov) Union Pacific Railroad (regulations.gov) Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA) - Inland Empire Chapter (regulations.gov) Historical Society of Palm Desert (Letter) National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Letter) San Pasquel Band of Mission Indians (Letter) 1 Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR MASTER RESPONSES Number Proposed Station Locations z Conceptual Nature of Build Alternative Option Components 3 Freight Train Volume Assumptions 4 Noise Quiet Zones 5 Program Implementation 6 Train Trip Frequency 7 Train Trip Duration 8 Program Funding 9 Program Timing Transit Connections 11 Locomotive Technology 12 Environmental Justice Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR COMMON COMMENTS AND MASTER RESPONSES Program Components Comments received included Specific location requests for proposed station locations Train trip frequencies and durations (Requests for increases in frequency of passenger trains within the Program Corridor) Transit Connections (local, regional, state, and national) Requests for the consideration of greener and renewable rail technology (e.g. hydrogen, electrified rail, hyperloops, and Zero Emission Multiple Units) Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR COMMON COMMENTS AND MASTER RESPONSES Program Implementation Comments received included Concerns that certification and approval of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would lead to immediate construction and operation of the Program Requests for identification of site -specific analysis and mitigation Requests for clarification on how the Program would be implemented and funded along the Program Corridor Requests for clarification on timing of construction activities associated with rail and station facility development and timing of when passenger rail service would be in operation Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR COMMON COMMENTS AND MASTER RESPONSES Specific Environmental Topics Comments received included Concerns regarding freight growth impacts within the Corridor Requests for consideration, identification and development of noise quiet zones along segments of the railroad within the Program Corridor Program support for improving regional mobility options and new economic opportunities for EJ communities Requests for additional outreach with impacted EJ communities within the Program Corridor Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR COMMENT SUMMARY • All comments were appreciated and formal responses included as part of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. • None of the comments received provided new information that warrants recirculation of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIR/EIS under CEQA nor preparation of a supplemental analysis under N E PA. • A majority of the comments were supportive of the project. • Environmental concerns were addressed in the specific sections of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. • Many site -specific environmental concerns and mitigation efforts will be addressed after conceptual engineering is complete and projects elements are identified in the Tier 2. Summary of Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Complete Package From Website: FINAL TIER 1/PROGRAM EIS/EIR AND RECORD OF DECISION Notice of Availability & Public Hearing Notice Aviso de disponibilidad y anuncio de reunion publica Combined FINAL TIER 1/PROGRAM EIS/EIR AND RECORD OF DECISION Appendix A — Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Appendix B — Public Outreach Summary Report Appendix C — Comments Received on Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Appendix D — Response to Comments on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Appendix E — CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Staff Recommendations 1) Hear comments and close a public hearing on the proposed Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program and matters relating to the Program's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, including the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Program, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-015 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, Adopting Findings of Fact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Program" Program Environmental Document and Service Development Plan Public Hearing Questions? Summary of CEQA Actions CEQA requires certain action be taken before the Project may be approved: • Certify the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR • Adopt CEQA Findings of Fact ➢ The findings provide that mitigation strategies are required to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential impacts • Adopt Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) > The MMRP sets forth the mitigation strategies that will be help reduce the Project's potential environmental impacts • Adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations (SoC) > The SoC provides reasons why the Project's benefits outweigh the Project's environmental impacts AGENDA ITEM 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER Regional Groups Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties: Los Serranos, Tahquitz, San Bernardino Mountains, Mojave, Moreno Valley, Big Bear SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 July 6, 2022 Riverside County Transportation Commission BY EMAIL TO: Imobley@rctc.org and info@rctc.org Re: Support for Item 6, Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Chair and Members of the Commission: I am writing on behalf of the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club, which represents over 1000 members in the desert areas of Riverside County and the Morongo Basin of San Bernardino County. We support the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program as a step in the right direction to reduce air quality and land use impacts caused by the use of passenger cars commuting to or from the Coachella Valley or visiting the Valley and beyond. The Sierra Club's preference is to electrify transportation (such as moving from conventional diesel-electric to full electric locomotives), and we understand that electrification may be considered in the future. We urge doing so as soon as feasible. Additionally, we are pleased that programmatic strategies were identified in the PEIR/EIS to mitigate potential impacts of the Program to Environmental Justice communities, and that these will be further developed based on site -specific information at the time of project -specific environmental review, as well as Section 106 consultations. With that, we support the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program and look forward to engaging in its site -specific review and implementation. Very truly yours, Joan Taylor, Chair, Tahquitz Group Sir July 8, 2022 Mr. Sheldon Peterson Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: RCTC Certification of the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Dear Sheldon: The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) previously submitted comments on the draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, dated May, 2021. The draft EIS/EIR was prepared by RCTC in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). With the Final EIS/EIR now being published, we have reviewed the FRA Record of Decision, the comments by public agencies, private businesses and individuals, as well as the RCTC/FRA responses to those comments. As we stated in our comments on the draft documents, SBCTA strongly supports improvements to passenger rail service in Southern California. We also do not object to the Coachella Valley Rail Project advancing to a Tier 2 (project -level) environmental analysis. However, we remain concerned about the implications and potential impacts of a third track, as incorporated into the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) through several of the communities we represent: Redlands, Loma Linda, Colton, and Grand Terrace, plus a small section of unincorporated area. While we appreciate the responses to our comments in Appendix D of the Final EIS/EIR, the responses did not fully answer all the questions, particularly with respect to whether the third track would enable increased rail traffic. The response stated that "while implementation of the Build Alternative could increase operational efficiency of freight operations, it is not likely to increase the volume of freight traffic beyond the anticipated growth ...." SBCTA contends that this question is not yet settled and requests that it be addressed in more detail in the Tier 2 environmental analysis, whenever that occurs. It is noteworthy that the Rail Passenger 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410-1715 goSBCTA.com PLAN. BUILD. MOVE 909.884.8276 Phone 909.885.4407 Fax S. Be: ard:no Courtly Tran;Wr Authotily Association of California and Nevada, in Comment 0-05-5, highlighted the potential for increased freight volumes as a direct result of the third track. See quote below: "While UP has invested in many track capacity improvements on the Sunset Route over the years, one of its chokepoints remains the San Gorgonio Pass/Coachella Valley. With the new third main track, UP could run more conventional long-distance freight trains on the Sunset Route, and future short and medium -haul freight trains from LA/Inland Empire to the Coachella Valley and Arizona could be justified ...." What the Association is referring to is that the third track could enable growth in volume beyond what is forecast for the No -Build Alternative. This is entirely plausible, particularly when it is acknowledged by the project proponents that UP will have the flexibility to use the additional track to optimize flows through the most constrained portion of the Yuma line (i.e. San Gorgonio Pass). The potential impacts of this additional growth in freight rail were highlighted in our original comment letter. See attached. We wanted to bring these remaining concerns to your attention so that they do not get overlooked in the Tier 2 environmental process, and we look forward to being able to explore these issues and concerns with you in the next phase of review. Sincerely, Raymond W. Wolfe Executive Director 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410-1715 goSBCTA.com 909.884.8276 Phone PLAN. BUILD. MOVE 909.885.4407 Fax July 6, 2021 Federal Railroad Administration Amanda Ciampolillo, Environmental Protection Specialist 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Comments from San Bernardino County Transportation Authority on the draft Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Dear Ms. Ciampolillo: This letter represents the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority's (SBCTA's) comments on the draft Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, dated May 2021. The EIS/EIR has been prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). While SBCTA strongly supports improvements in passenger rail service in Southern California, and has been investing in systems such as Metrolink for almost three decades now, we have several questions/concerns about the Coachella Valley Rail (CV Rail) proposal. Our primary comments are less concerned with the passenger service itself, which involves only two round trip trains per day. We support the concept of this additional passenger rail connectivity, recognizing that there are elements remaining to be worked out with local jurisdictions, such as potential station locations. Rather, our comments are more focused on the increase in overall train volumes that the proposed third track between Colton and Indio/Coachella will enable. The draft EIS/EIR does not touch on this point, and we believe the final EIS/EIR should be more transparent about the potential usage of the third track by freight rail and the framework for agreements that will need to be put in place between the CV Rail project sponsors/operators and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Some background behind our concern is provided below. For example, page 2-25 of the EIS/EIR states: "The No Build Alternative includes forecast growth in freight traffic on UP 's Yuma Subdivision. The California State Rail Plan (Caltrans 2018) anticipates that rail intermodal traffic in California will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 percent through 2040 and that rail carload traffic will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 1.7 percent through 2040, which could add approximately 50 additional freight trains to UP 's Yuma Subdivision. This growth forecast is consistent with growth projections provided by UP for computerized rail operations modeling simulations undertaken by RCTC for the Program." 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410-1715 goSBCTA.com 909.884.8276 Phone PLAN. BUILD, MOVE 909.885.4407 Fax July 6, 2021 Federal Railroad Administration / Amanda Ciampolillo Page 2 This forecast growth represents a doubling of freight trains through mixed residential/commercial areas of San Bernardino County by 2040 and is consistent with forecasts provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Some of the communities along the route are concerned that the third track, that would be environmentally cleared under the auspices of the CV Rail project, will enable this substantial growth in freight rail to occur more readily, with all the associated impacts. This is clearly a possibility, yet the CV Rail EIS/EIR is silent on the subject. At the same time, the agencies verbally acknowledge that UP will be able to use the third track to optimize operations, as discussed in prior CV Rail workshops. It should be noted that all the growth in freight rail volumes is assumed in the no -build scenario, and we question whether this assumption is entirely valid. There are already substantial community concerns about gate down time leading to increased vehicular delays on main thoroughfares, as well as rail, engine and train horn noise experienced both day and night, through the San Bernardino County communities of Redlands, Loma Linda, Colton, and Grand Terrace, plus a small section of unincorporated area. A map is attached showing city boundaries and the rail alignment. The sponsoring agencies appear to be positioning the Tier 1 EIS/EIR to enable environmental clearance of the third track in the Tier 2 document showing very limited impact from the CV Rail project, when in fact the third track would enable substantial additional freight rail with potentially major impacts. We think that this potential outcome needs to be mentioned, evaluated, and explained in the Tier 1 final document, in the interest of transparency and sensitivity toward communities that will be further impacted in San Bernardino County. It is difficult to envision how the third track would not allow for additional growth in freight rail volumes. SBCTA is sensitive to this issue as there have been other recent developments in the UP and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) corridors in San Bernardino County that portend a major increase in freight and truck traffic in the coming years in the communities we serve. A major new BNSF intermodal facility in Colton is being environmentally cleared as part of the California High -Speed Rail program's Los Angeles to Anaheim segment. The Colton Intermodal Facility is identified in one sentence on page 80 of the recently -adopted 2020 California High Speed Rail Business Plan, yet from a local standpoint, this facility will have major impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, and visual effects. Spokespersons for the California High -Speed Rail have indicated that the proposed Colton facility will be larger than the current BNSF San Bernardino Intermodal Facility immediately adjacent to SBCTA's offices. See page 80 of the Business Plan at: https://hsr.ca.aov/about/high-speed-rail-business-plans/2020-business-plan/ for reference to the BNSF facility. Union Pacific Railroad also recently announced the transition of their rail facilities just south of Interstate 10 in Fontana, unincorporated County, and west Colton to an intermodal operation, with no environmental review or public input required. The communities that would be impacted by the expanded BNSF and UP operations are some of the most disadvantaged communities in the state. Within this context, we trust that FRA, RCTC, and Caltrans understand why SBCTA and our local jurisdiction members would be concerned with the freight -related implications of the CV Rail project. With California High -Speed Rail, the benefits accrue to Los Angeles and Orange Counties, while the freight impacts would be experienced by the disadvantaged July 6, 2021 Federal Railroad Administration / Amanda Ciampolillo Page 3 communities in San Bernardino County. These same communities can now envision a scenario in which the well -intended expansion of capacity for passenger rail to the Coachella Valley would have the consequence (intended or not) of increasing freight impacts. It is imperative that this possible scenario be explained in a transparent way by answering the following questions at a minimum: 1. Given that there are only two round trip CV Rail passenger trains per day, specifically how will the third track be used by UP? 2. How much additional growth will the third track enable? We understand that a rule of thumb is that an additional track could add capacity for approximately 40 trains per day. The future forecast is for an average of 88 trains per day in demand. The peak season demand would be at least an additional ten percent (based on seasonal variations in port container volumes), so this means potentially 100 trains per day in peak season demand in 2040. A 2007 report by the Association of American Railroads cited a two -track freight rail line could accommodate up to 75 trains per day. How would the additional 25 peak trains be accommodated? The implication is that the third track would be needed to make that happen, particularly when considering the westbound upgrade in the Banning Pass. 3. What cost -sharing arrangements are likely to be made on the third track? It would be difficult to justify full 100% public funding of the third track, given two round trip passenger trains per day. 4. What framework is being established for agreements with UP to govern future growth and use of the third track? As stated earlier, SBCTA is supportive of passenger rail network expansion, and we have no objections to the passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley. However, the EIS/EIR is silent on the benefits that will accrue to freight rail on this public investment, and it would be a significant oversight not to address this concern in the final Tier 1 EIS/EIR. We would even suggest that mitigations be developed for the Tier 1 document in anticipation of the additional freight impacts that could be expected with the addition of the third track. At a minimum, this would include a statement that any Tier 2 document would specifically quantify the benefits to freight rail, the associated community impacts in San Bernardino County, and a concept for cost -sharing that would be proportional to the benefits, so that public sector funds do not get unnecessarily diverted to a private sector use. SBCTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the CV Rail Tier 1 EIS/EIR and for the inclusion of SBCTA on the Technical Advisory Committee. We are available for further discussions on the topics raised above. Our contact on this project is Steve Smith, Director of Planning who can be reached at (909) 884-8276 or at ssmith(gosbcta.com. Sincerely, 'xz Raymond W. Wolfe, PhD cc: Steve Smith, SBCTA Carrie Schindler, SBCTA Sheldon Peterson, RCTC From: Cheryl Donahue <CDonahue@rctc.org> Date: July 12, 2022 at 7:52:58 AM PDT To: Lisa Mobley <LMobley@rctc.org>, Sheldon Peterson <speterson@rctc.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] FIX MISTAKE in Coachella Valley Service ROD Please see below. Cheryl Donahue Public Affairs Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission From: John Ullcott <ullcott@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 4:09 AM To: ullcott@yahoo.com; Info <info@RCTC.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FIX MISTAKE in Coachella Valley Service ROD PO Box 7232 Van Nuys, CA 91409 Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportaion Commisioners County of Riverside Administration Center, 1st Floor 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Riverside County Transportaion Commision 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 RE: Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail CorridorService Program Joint Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2016101017 / CEQA Findings of Fact RE: Cerification of Tier 1/ Program EIS/EIR, 7/7/2022 Agenda Item 6. Paragraphs 1. & 2. : 1 July 13, 2022 for Hearing Date: July 13, 2022 To All It May Concern, BIG MISTAKE IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY R.O.D NEEDS TO BE FIXED BEFORE ADOPTING IT! How you fix it makes a world of difference; let me explain: THE MISTAKE IS (on Page 1-16, 4th paragraph) "The Preferred Alternative is Build Alternative Option 1 and consists of the existing route traveled by Amtrak Sunset Limid trains between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley..." NO. FIX THIS "FINDING OF ACT": THE SUNSET LIMITED'S ROUTE WAS NEVER ROUTED VIA FULLERTON DURING THE AMTRAK YEARS! (per Station Agent Paul at VNY, who hired on c. 1987) AND prior to Amtrak, Fullerton never had a Southern Pacific Station.) MAKE THE BEST CORRECTION!: CHANGE THE WESTERN -HALF ROUTE -MAP Page 1-9 TO HIGHLIGHT THE UNION PACIFIC/ AMTRAK SUNSET ROUTE - TO MAKE THE WORDS TRUE - (NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND)! This means going east from Los Angeles Union Station (LAX), on the Union Pacific, serving Sunset Limited stations Ontario (ONA) & Pomona (POS)... going through the Colton Crossing without changing direction. WANT 3 GOOD REASONS?: 1. IT IS SHORTER. WHICH MEANS FASTER (Est.: 12-15 miles shorter), taking the Sunset Route. 2. IT SAVES TIME TO RUN ON ONE ROUTE (Sunset Route), WITH ONE RAILROAD (now Union Pacific), & ONE SET OF DISPATCHERS. 3. IT MAKES SERVICE DAILY BOOSTING FREQUENCY ON AN EXISITING AMTRAK LONG DISTANCE ROUTE LAX-COACHELLA (Amtrak's present Sunset Limited is still only a "Tri-weekly" Train) AND You may not know plans are in play in both Arizona & California to extend this service east to the boarded -up downtown Phoenix station (the U.S.' largest city (4 Million) without an Amtrak train), making all 3 Good Reasons even more compelling! "for better transit & more of it," (John Ulloth) 2 From: Cheryl Donahue <CDonahue@RCTC.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 4:50 PM To: Lisa Mobley <LMobley@RCTC.org>; Sheldon Peterson <speterson@RCTC.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment on Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Final EIR - July 13, 2022 Meeting Agenda Item 6 We received this comment through our website today. Cheryl Donahue Public Affairs Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission From: Grady Yu <contactme@gradyyu.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 3:36 PM To: Info <info@RCTC.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment on Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Final EIR - July 13, 2022 Meeting Agenda Item 6 Dear Commissioners of the RCTC, I must bring to your attention a possible defect in the draft EIR for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program. The findings relating to alternative modes of travel in the draft EIR are no longer accurate because the availability of alternative modes of travel has evolved in the time since the original completion of the draft EIR. The routes of Sunline Commuter Link 120 and Sunline Commuter Link 220 have been discontinued. The replacement route Sunline 10 Commuter Link Service no longer serves the Riverside Metrolink station and several intermediate stops formerly served by Sunline Commuter Link 120. https://sunline.org/services/10-commuter-link-service The draft EIR portrays Greyhound as the sole operator of intercity bus service in the Coachella Valley Area but other operators, such as Flixbus, now also provide service in the area. To the best of my knowledge, this service has been available since around the year 2020. The existence of a competitive market in intercity bus service suggests that the draft EIR may have underestimated travel demand to and from the Coachella Valley Area. https://www.flixbus.com/bus- routes/bus-los-angeles-ca-palm-springs-Indio-coachella-valley-ca I urge the commission to consider whether the EIR must be revised prior to the RCTC granting final approval of the EIR. I further recommend to the RCTC to produce an updated study of travel patterns in the project area in order to present the strongest possible case for this project to be funded by federal, state, and other grantor agencies. 1 Thank you for your consideration, Grady Yu 2 DATE: D ,YACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD /t3 /2 -2 - CHECK IF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O AGEND A ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AG ENDA) NAME: AD DRESS: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMEN TS: SUBJECT OF '11 AGENDA ITEM: Is . STREET REPRESENTING: &4y esp NAME OF AG EN CY / ORGA NIZAT IO N / GROUP swrk 41- Fl}f zo1Avvi BUSIN ESS ADDRESS: SCANT/ STREET CITY PHONE NO.: PHONE NO.: ZI8223( P CODE (,73c) F - (>2 CITY ZIP CO DE AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: AB 361 Determination STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, "A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Virtual Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361." The findings are as follows: a. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exist today; and b. State or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since the onset of the COVID-19 in early 2020, California government agencies have been able to continue to discharge their legal responsibilities through the use of virtual teleconferencing platforms such as Zoom to hold public meetings that enabled agencies to meet and conduct business, comply with social distancing orders and most importantly, provide access to the public. In many cases, virtual meetings have actually enhanced public participation, particularly in larger counties including Riverside County where traveling to a public meeting can be inconvenient or require traveling a long distance. Both the RCA and RCTC have been meeting on Zoom since March of 2020, when many Executive Orders were issued by Governor Newsom in response to the pandemic. One such order altered Brown Act requirements to allow for virtual meetings. Although transmission, hospitalization and death rates from COVID-19 have sharply declined since the original onset of the pandemic and subsequent Delta Variant surge, an air or uncertainty remains regarding the pandemic and many counties continue to recommend masking inside and social distancing. Given that environment and a desire to continue allowing for the flexibility of holding virtual meetings, the Legislature recently approved, and Governor Newsom signed, Assembly Bill 361 to temporarily allow for virtual meeting under proscribed circumstances. Agenda Item 7A 170 AB 361 Effective immediately, AB 361 amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology in certain circumstances. Under the Bill, legislative bodies can continue to meet remotely as long as there is a "proclaimed state of emergency" and the Commission can make either of the following findings: (a) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or (b) whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which State of Emergency continues to exist to this day. Further, both State and Riverside County officials continue to recommend the social distancing. AB 361 requires specific procedural safeguards for the public. To accommodate individuals during these teleconferences and virtual meetings, a public comment period will be offered where the public can address the legislative body directly in real time. Additionally, public comments will be allowed up until the public comment period is closed at the meetings. The agenda will include information on the manner in which the public may access the meeting and provide comments remotely. If technical problems arise that result in the public's access being disrupted, the legislative body will not take any vote or other official action until the technical disruption is corrected and public access is restored. The attached Resolution allows the Board to implement AB 361 by making the findings discussed above. This findings will be in effect for 30 days or until the Board makes findings that the conditions listed therein long longer exist, whichever is shorter. The findings can be extended by the Board upon a finding that conditions supporting the findings included in the Resolution still exist. The authorization to meet remotely will apply to any Committees that meet during the 30 - day effective period. AB 361 will allow for virtual meetings during other state -proclaim emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk. AB 361 is scheduled to sunset January 1, 2024. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reafirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, "A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Virtual Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361". Attachment: Resolution No. 22-007 Agenda Item 7A 171 RESOLUTION NO. 22-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING VIRTUAL BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the Board of Commissioners, Executive Committee, Budget and Implementation Committee, Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, Toll Policy and Operations Committee, Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, all meetings of the Commission's legislative bodies, including its Board of Commissioners, Executive Committee, Budget and Implementation Committee, Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, Toll Policy and Operations Committee, Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 — 54963), so that any member of the public may attend and participate in the Commission's meetings; and WHEREAS, starting in March 2020, in response to the spread of COVID-19 in the State of California, the Governor issued a number of executive orders aimed at containing the COVID-19 virus; and WHEREAS, among other things, these orders waived certain requirements of the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Governor's executive orders, the Commission has been holding virtual meetings during the pandemic in the interest of protecting the health and safety of the public, Commission staff and Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Governor's executive order related to the suspension of certain provisions of the Brown Act expired on September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 the Governor signed AB 361 (in effect as of October 1, 2021 — Government Code Section 54953(e)), which allows legislative bodies to meet virtually provided there is a state of emergency, and either (1) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (2) the legislative body determines by majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the Commission, specifically, a state of emergency has been proclaimed related to COVID-19 and state or local officials are recommending measures to promote social distancing, 172 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. Section 2. Findings. Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(e), the Board of Commissioners finds and determines that (1) a state of emergency related to COVID-19 is currently in effect and (2) state or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with COVID-19. Section 3. Remote Teleconference Meetings: Based on the findings and determinations included herein, the Board of Commissioners authorizes and directs any of its legislative bodies, including without limitation its Board of Commissioners, Executive Committee, Budget and Implementation Committee, Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, Toll Policy and Operations Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee to conduct remote teleconference meetings under the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(e) and that such bodies shall provide public access to their meetings as provided in Section 54953(e). Section 4. Full and Fair Access: In making the findings included herein the board specifically relies on Section 8(b) of Stats.2021, c.165 (A.B.361), § 3, eff. Sept. 16, 2021.) which provides as follows: (b) The Legislature finds and declares that [the changes made by AB 361 to] Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public's right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest: (1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a primary physical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a physical location over members of the public who cannot travel or attend that meeting in a physical location. (2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from the member's private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private information of public officials and their families while preserving the public's right to access information concerning the conduct of the people's business. 173 Section 5. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption and shall be effective for 30 days unless earlier extended by a majority vote of the Board of Commissioners in accordance with Section 5 of this Resolution. Section 6. Extension by Motion. The Board of Commissioners may extend the application of this Resolution by motion and majority vote by up to 30 days at a time, provided that it makes all necessary findings consistent with and pursuant to the requirements of Section 54953(e)(3). Any such extension may be made before or after the expiration of the preceding 30 day period. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission this 9th day of March 2022, by the following vote: APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 2022. V. Manuel Perez, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 174 AGENDA ITEM 7B MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair V. Manuel Perez at 9:31 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Ben J. Benoit V. Manuel Perez Russell Betts Dana Reed Chuck Conder Guillermo Silva Joseph DeConinck Jeremy Smith Maryann Edwards Wes Speake* Raymond Gregory Karen Spiegel Waymond Fermon Michael M. Vargas Jan Harnik Chuck Washington Steven Hernandez Ted Weill Jeff Hewitt Bill Zimmerman Wendy Hewitt Ted Hoffman Kevin Jeffries Bob Magee Lisa Middleton Diane Morales *Arrived after the meeting was called to order. Lisa DeForest Kathleen Fitzpatrick Yxstian Gutierrez Mary Hamlin Michael Heath Clint Lorimore Linda Krupa Lloyd White 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Bob Magee led the Commission in a flag salute. At this time, Commissioner Wes Speake joined the meeting. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anne Mayer, Executive Director, recognized and expressed extreme appreciation to Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, for his 16 years of service at RCTC and congratulated him on his retirement. 175 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 2 Marlin Feenstra expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer, to staff, and to the Board who have been fantastic and stated it has been a privilege to work at RCTC for the last 16 years. Anne Mayer recognized and expressed appreciation to John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, for being an exceptional public servant and for everything he has done at RCTC. John has been with RCTC since 1999 and they have been an outstanding team since 2008, and she congratulated John Standiford for his retirement. John Standiford expressed appreciation for the representatives that have always been able to represent their community and had the greater County in mind and it has been a pleasure working with various people on the Board in the past and present. He also expressed gratitude to Anne Mayer as they have been a great team and to staff as he was proud to work with all of them. He will miss working with everyone and appreciates the opportunity. Chair Perez thanked Anne Mayer for the presentations and to both Marlin Feenstra and John Standiford for their service. 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Chair Perez announced the public hearing remains open from its May 11 Commission meeting. Sergio Vidal, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2022/23, highlighting the following: • Budget summary • Revenues/sources by breakdown and by comparison • Summary of expenditures, expenses, and uses • Management Services, Regional Programs, Capital Project Development and Delivery expenditures and uses • Capital Project highlights • Toll Operations • Function by breakdown • Measure A Administrative costs • Next steps Sergio Vidal thanked the Commission throughout this process and to Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance, for all her efforts during this budget season. 176 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 3 There were no comments received from the public. In response to Commissioner Maryann Edwards' question how many employees RCTC has now, including the four new positions, and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Sergio Vidal replied the total employees for the current FY 2021/22 is 77 and with the proposed Budget it will go up to 81, so there are four additional positions. Commissioner Wes Speake expressed appreciation for the presentation and that the State Route 241/91 Connector is included in here. He stated it is very important to the way that SR -91 functions and asked about the expenditure for the excess toll revenue, what percentage of RCTC's excess toll revenue does that $778,800 equal. Sergio Vidal replied they are still closing out the current FY 2021/22 so in the budget the Interstate 15/SR-91 Express Lane Connector is estimated to provide $90 million and for the upcoming fiscal year $75 million will be attributed towards the 15/91 Connector, so it would be about 1 or 2 percent in relation to the requested action for the 241/91 Connector. Anne Mayer clarified that was the 15/91 Connector, the 241/91 Connector if they are at $800,000 to support all the efforts the SR -91 at this point RCTC's revenues this year is going to be in the $50 million range. Sergio Vidal replied $58 million to $60 million and the excess revenue for this year they are projecting an estimate of $20 million to $30 million with excess of debt service and operations. Anne Mayer stated it is a relatively small amount and RCTC's only contribution on the 241/91 Connector is staff support, coordination, and getting all the agreements done. Commissioner Speake replied he figured for such a small amount that is what it was going to be, and he is very pleased to see that funded by Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) and that it is going forward. At this time, Chair Perez closed the public hearing. He asked if there were any other comments from the Commissioners. In response to Commissioner Kevin Jeffries' question to Anne Mayer if the budget contains any proposed projects that are possibly on the radar of this legislation in Sacramento to kill all the new projects going forward. Anne Mayer replied yes. She explained most of the projects included in RCTC's budget are capacity related projects and she has not heard anything that would stop existing projects that are under construction in their tracks. If this legislation passes what it could impact would be future projects and whether RCTC would be able to proceed with project delivery at all. She stated that any project in construction is safe, and it is logical that those will not be stopped, and they have heard no discussion about what would happen with transition plans whatsoever. 177 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 4 Commissioner Jeffries clarified that this budget does not contain any new projects RCTC is kicking off that would require state approval potentially under the new guidelines of no new freeway expansions in California. Anne Mayer replied there is money in the budget for the I-10/Highland Springs Interchange, which is headed towards design so if this legislation went into place, they would have to work with Caltrans to figure out if perhaps that project could continue based on a safety need. She stated they are starting projects that could have an impact later and recommended they do not slow down, they do not stop, and they keep going. Commissioner Jeffries concurred and stated it is always hostile to work in California, but it has just now come to Riverside County. Anne Mayer stated that she anticipates if the bills pass, they will be forced to a complete reanalysis of RCTC's sales tax measure. Commissioner Steven Hernandez expressed appreciation to Sergio Vidal for the budget presentation as he believes this was the first year that Mr. Vidal put it all together and the Commissioners are used to Theresia Trevino, Former Chief Financial Officer, that used to present the budget. He thanked Sergio Vidal for a good job, for his work, and to keep it up. Commissioner Karen Spiegel clarified with Sergio Vidal when he discussed the increases and the payroll and benefits on July 14 that is because the payroll period is starting on July 1. Sergio Vidal replied that is correct and stated that RCTC's first complete payroll cycle for the fiscal year is on July 14. Commissioner Spiegel concurred with Commissioner Steven Hernandez' comments to Sergio Vidal that it was a good presentation. M/S/C (Benoit/Spiegel) to: 1) Receive input on the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget; 2) Approve the salary schedule effective July 14, 2022, located in Appendix B of the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget; 3) Authorize the expenditure of $778,800 of 91 Express Lanes toll revenues designated as surplus in accordance with the 2013 Toll Revenue Bonds Indenture to fund Commission costs related to the development of agreements specific to the funding, construction, operations, maintenance, and use of toll revenues for the future direct, tolled connector linking the SR -241 toll road to the 91 Express Lanes (241/91 Connector); 178 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 5 4) Adopt Resolution No. 22-009 "Resolution of Fixing the Employer Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act at an Equal Amount for Employees and Annuitants" to increase the health care premium contribution up to a maximum of $1,500 per month to each employee or non -vested retiree beginning August 1, 2022, as approved by the Executive Committee on March 9, 2022; 5) Close the public hearing on the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget; and 6) Adopt the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Wendy Hewitt requested to pull Agenda Item 7G, "Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2022/23", and Agenda Item 7P, "Approval of Metrolink Operating and Capital Subsidies for Fiscal Year 2022/23 Related Memorandum of Understanding", for further discussion. M/S/C (Vargas/Spiegel) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. Abstain: Gregory and Middleton on Agenda Item 7B 7A. AB 361 DETERMINATION Reaffirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, "A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Virtual Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361." The findings are as follows: a. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exist today; and b. State or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing. 7B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 11, 2022 7C. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Adopt Resolution No. 22-010 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Annual Appropriations Limit", for Fiscal Year 2022/23. 7D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2022. 179 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 6 7E. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for the Quarter 4, 2021 (4Q 2021). 7F. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2022. 7H. AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND HABITAT CONSERVATION LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES AND HABITAT CONSERVATION LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES 1) Award the following agreements to provide Federal Infrastructure/Habitat Conservation Legislative Advocacy Services and Federal Habitat Conservation Legislative Advocacy Services as follows: a) Agreement No. 22-14-064-00 to Kadesh & Associates, LLC, for a four-year term, and two, two-year options to extend the agreement; in an amount not to exceed $1,533,395; and b) Agreement No. 22-18-070-00 with Hogan Lovells US LLP, for a four- year term, and two, two-year options to extend the agreement; in an amount of $1,518,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreements, including option terms, on behalf of the Commission. 71. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, JANUARY — MARCH 2022 Receive and file Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for January — March 2022. 7J. FISCAL YEARS 2022/23 — 2026/27 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR THE LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM Approve the Fiscal Years 2022/23 — 2026/27 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads (LSR) as submitted by the participating agencies. 7K. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION — LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING OF MATERIALS 1) Award the following agreements to provide On -Call Geotechnical Investigation — Laboratory and Field Testing of Materials for a three-year 180 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 7 term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $500,000; a) Agreement No. 22-31-051-00 to Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta); b) Agreement No. 22-31-086-00 to Kleinfelder, Inc.; c) Agreement No. 22-31-087-00 to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants (Ninyo & Moore); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders under the terms of the agreements. 7L. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT SERVICES 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call right of way support services for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $3.3 million: a) Agreement No. 22-31-040-00 to Epic Land Solutions; b) Agreement No. 22-31-080-00 to Monument ROW, Inc.; c) Agreement No. 22-31-081-00 to Overland, Pacific, & Cutler; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultants under the terms of the agreements. 7M. FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATES AND TRANSIT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 1) Approve the Fiscal Years 2022/23 — FY 2024/25 Draft Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and the Commission's FY 2022/23 — 2026/27 SRTP for the Rail and Vanpool Programs; 2) Approve Fiscal Year 2022/23 Transit Operator Funding Allocations of 2009 Measure A, Local Transportation Funds (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA), and State of Good Repair (SGR) for Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside; PVVTA; RTA; SunLine; and the Commission's Rail and Vanpool Programs aggregating $156,413,915; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 22-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds For the Fiscal Year 2022/23"; 181 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 8 4) Approve the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Sections 5307, 5311, 5337, and 5339 Program of Projects (POP) for Riverside County as detailed in the respective transit operators' SRTPs; and 5) Direct staff to submit the federally funded and regionally significant projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) as needed for the FTA POP. 7N. AGREEMENT FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE 1) Award Agreement No. 22-45-073-00 to Royal Coaches Auto Body and Towing, LLC for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) tow truck services on State Route 91, Beat Nos. 1 and 2, for a five-year term, in the amount of $3,824,793, plus a contingency amount of $191,240, for a total amount not to exceed $4,016,033; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for these services. 70. FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SUPERVISION 1) Approve Agreement No. 22-45-079-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed $2,167,546; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE David Knudsen, External Affairs Director, presented an update for the state and federal legislative activities. He expressed appreciation to Chair Perez for helping staff coordinate those meetings and providing that information to Assembly Member Cristina Garcia regarding AB 1778. David Knudsen noted last November RCTC submitted a Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant funding application for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service seeking $20 million for the Tier II environmental, unfortunately RCTC's application in partnership with Caltrans was not successful, although $46 million was awarded to projects across California. Staff is seeking a briefing from the Federal Railroad Administration to get some feedback on their application in preparation for future grant opportunities. 182 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 9 Commissioner Kevin Jeffries asked about the transportation bills that are hostile to Riverside County and other counties if David Knudsen has the names of legislatures that represent Riverside County that voted against their interests. David Knudsen replied he can provide who did not vote for the bills, including Assembly Members Sabrina Cervantes and Chad Mayes who did not support the three bills and the other members of their delegation supported the bills. Commissioner Jeffries clarified that it would be Assembly Member Jose Medina. David Knudsen replied Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia. In response to Commissioner Dana Reed's question, David Knudsen replied Assembly Member Kelly Seyarto did not vote for the bills. Commissioner Jeffries stated assuming they have two hostile legislators working against Riverside County. In response to Chair Perez' inquiry if they had reached out before the votes, David Knudsen replied yes, staff reached out to all the members of the delegation before the votes. Commissioner Reed expressed that this is very confusing and requested David Knudsen to send the Commissioners the list of all three transportation bills votes, because it does not make sense if there are only two or three members of the assembly from Riverside County that failed to support the bills. David Knudsen confirmed that they will do that. Commissioner Lisa Middleton stated it was very distressing to hear the Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor project did not get the CRISI funding. She stated having had conversations with Anne Mayer that they need to step up their game in terms of the kind of input they are giving to their elected officials and in the community regarding the importance of this project. Commissioner Middleton suggested putting together an ad hoc committee that would be responsible for ramping up the attention to the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor project and the importance of getting funding for this project and get it moving. Chair Perez concurred with Commissioner Middleton's comments and suggested that they need to think about who would want to volunteer for an ad hoc committee and asked if legal counsel needs to guide them on approving an ad hoc committee. Steven DeBaun, Legal Counsel, replied the Chair has the authority under the Commission's Administrative Code to create and appoint an ad hoc committee. That can be done and either announce it at a Board meeting or the Chair can just do it as part of the Chair's powers. 183 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 10 Chair Perez announced that he will take volunteers that would like to be part of that ad hoc committee. The following Commissioners requested to be on the ad hoc committee: Waymond Fermon Dana Reed Lisa Middleton Jan Harnik Jeff Hewitt Michael Vargas Maryann Edwards V. Manuel Perez Karen Spiegel Wes Speake Commissioner Jeff Hewitt expressed appreciation for Commissioner Middleton's suggestion to create an ad hoc committee as this Commission does need to have more clout and face the state with this as this is a big project for the entire County. Chair Perez concurred with Commissioners Middleton and Reed's comments for bringing these points up as they need to go in force and show up at their office as potentially an ad hoc committee and state their claim and argue their points. It would be very difficult for a legislator not to take a meeting, not to hear all the Commissioners out, and to vote in favor of that legislation after hearing them speak about this issue. He stated he would support that moving forward and is hoping they can have this ad hoc committee meeting sooner than later to put together a strategy because eventually the legislators will be coming home and that is when the Commissioners should meet with them. Chair Perez explained it is one thing to go to Sacramento and meet with the legislators out there, but it is much more effective if the Commissioners meet with the legislators in their own district office because there is so much going on in Sacramento. He suggested to assign someone from RCTC staff to help coordinate this effort and asked if David Knudsen would be the one. David Knudsen replied yes. Chair Perez stated to Mr. Knudsen that he is in charge of coordinating this and getting all the Commissioners together to have this conversation sooner than later so they can sit down with the legislators. Commissioner Spiegel stated if they want another non -Coachella Valley member to be on this ad hoc committee as they need to show that this is countywide not just Coachella Valley. In response to Chair Perez' question if she was signing up, Commissioner Spiegel replied yes. 184 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 11 Commissioner Speake concurred with Commissioner Spiegel's comment as he wants the representatives from the Coachella Valley to be on the ad hoc committee, but if they need additional Commissioners to sign, help, or anything else he is certainly willing. He stated not only for this project, but since these bills are coming fast and furious especially these three highlighted bills it would be good to have a version of this going forward. He expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for putting together that website as he has shared it a lot the last few days and spent many nights responding back to people, educating, and trying to get more information, and hopefully that is translating to people clicking on the link to support. Commissioner Speake suggested they need to do more than that, this is a great first step for the Commission and if the Commissioners have not shared it with their colleagues at their councils they need to because this is an attack on what they do here in Riverside County and how they help their constituents. Commissioner Maryann Edwards stated in addition to meeting with their own representatives to try and get meetings with the committee chairperson or the individuals that serve on the relevant committees to introduce Riverside County and give them some faces to put with Riverside County and the projects that they have. Chair Perez concurred with Commissioner Edwards' comments and suggested to have that conversation with the ad hoc committee to strategize and plan as to how to go about their efforts moving forward. M/S/C to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 9. AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE INTERSTATE-10/HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager, presented the I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange Improvements, highlighting the following areas: • Regional view of the project location and an ariel exhibit of the project footprint • Background and update o Presented update to City Councils in May 2021 o Caltrans approved PSR on December 10, 2021 o Alternatives ✓ Hook Ramp Alternatives ✓ Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Alternatives ✓ Auxiliary lanes included on 1-10 o CEQA — Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) o NEPA — Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) • Procurement process and the scope, cost and, schedule 185 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 12 • Additional funds needed for project approval/environmental documents (PA/ED) — PSR Phase Funding — Funding Provided by WRCOG — Cooperative Agreement No. 20-72-018-00 o Allocated $2 million of TUMF Pass Zone Funding o PSR cost $473,155 o Remaining $1,526,845 to be used for PA/ED Phase PA/ED Phase Funding o Amend Cooperative Agreement to increase TUMF Pass Zone funding by an additional $1 million ✓ Any remaining funds will be allocated to the PS&E phase o This action is subject to the approval of the Pass Zone Executive Committee and WRCOG Executive Committee (meetings were rescheduled for next month) David Lewis stated advancing a project to the next Caltrans phase is a significant accomplishment by the project team and he thanked the city of Banning Director of Public Works Arturo Vela, city of Beaumont Public Works Director Jeff Hart, along with Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) Deputy Executive Director Chris Gray for helping secure the additional funding. Commissioner Spiegel stated her comment is related to this but indirectly as they had discussed at the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting about looking into agreements with the cities on projects. She understands this is not quite the same level they were talking about and the participation is a little different as it is an interchange, but she wanted to ensure that as the Commission is getting new projects if that is something they are going to look at in getting into agreements with the cities so that if things change there are consequences. Commissioner Spiegel stated she wanted to ensure they do not set this on the back burner as the Commission has lots more projects coming forward. She noted there is nothing against the cities of Banning and Beaumont by any means, it is just that if they got to do a process, they need to make a decision and start the process and action. Anne Mayer replied for RCTC projects they are working on what that language might be. She explained this specific project is in a slightly different category in that RCTC is not the lead agency and the funder of the project at this point. After meeting with the cities of Banning and Beaumont because this project is in both cities it is highly complex, RCTC agreed to take on the project delivery of this project for them. Anne Mayer stated the funding will likely be WRCOG for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Zone as well as possibly some other city funding, so this project is in a slightly different situation in that they are basically hiring RCTC to build this project and it will be their funds on the table as opposed to RCTC's. 186 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 13 Commissioner Spiegel clarified as the Commission moves forward in the future presentation of this project, they should acknowledge that then and use those exact words that this is not one they are going to have an agreement because of these reasons. Anne Mayer replied they will. Commissioner Russell Betts expressed appreciation for this item as it is good news because this intersection is really congested all the time. It is good to see that something is going to be done there and he tried to get through that intersection one time and decided to look for another way to get to 1-10. He went down to Sunset and when he got to Sunset there was a dirt road, and he did not want to take that in his vehicle. He suggested sometimes instead of fixing an intersection where everybody is going if they had another outlet and it seemed if they could take a look when looking at the scope of this project is there other ways that traffic could go specifically Sunset to get down to 1-10, because the Highland exit is very difficult to use any other alternative method to get to 1-10. Commissioner Betts suggested that somebody needs to look at construction at these on ramps as it is very dangerous trying to get onto 1-10, because it is not the normal on ramp it is very short, it is very quick, and just lucky to have an opening to get in. Even with the signs that say speed limit strictly enforced that is not happening as it is not strictly enforced there by California Highway Patrol (CHP), and it is dangerous situation. He stated when they look at the scope to look at another access to relieve the congestion at Highland maybe through the alternate routes and do something if they can to improve the construction traffic safety. Anne Mayer replied related to the scope of the project it is pretty much set and it is confined to the interchange itself, but to Commissioner Betts' point about Sunset the city of Banning has been trying for a long time to get funding to extend Sunset so that it goes all the way through. They also are a partner with the county of Riverside on the 1-10 Emergency Bypass, which will help provide some additional access on the southside but with respect to the entirety of 1-10 almost every single one of those interchanges needs to be rebuilt. Anne Mayer stated the congestion levels have created some significant safety and congestion concerns both locally and on 1-10 and there are other projects along that corridor that are in the works that will get to some of the issues Commissioner Betts raised. She noted with respect to the safety issues along 1-10, Diane Morales, Interim District Director, Caltrans District 8, was taking notes as that is a big Caltrans rehabilitation project with respect to CHP coordination and the safety along that corridor. M/S/C (Zimmerman/Betts) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 22-72-011-00 to Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. to provide Preparation of Project Approval/Environmental Documents (PA/ED) for the I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange 187 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 14 Improvements in the cities of Banning and Beaumont (Project) for a twenty -four -month term in the amount of $2,199,634, plus a contingency amount of $219,963, for a total amount not to exceed $2,419,597, contingent upon final TUMF funding approval by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Executive Committee; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute Agreement No. 22-72-011-00, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services; 4) Approve Agreement No. 22-72-091-00 with WRCOG for additional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Zone funding for the Project in the amount of $1,000,000; 5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute Agreement No. 22-72-091-00, on behalf of the Commission; and 6) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute any future non -funding related amendments to the agreements. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, stated that the Best Best and Krieger (BBI<) contract is part of agenda item 7G so he will leave the room. 7G. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Commissioner Wendy Hewitt stated she is aware that these are routine services but wanted to see how often RCTC puts them out for competitive bid. Alicia Johnson, Senior Procurement Analyst, replied for specialized services which is why they are on recurring, these contracts will go out for competitive bid every three to five years depending on the type of project. Anne Mayer clarified there are a handful of these contracts that have not been procured within the last three to five years. She used Bechtel Infrastructure as an example as they provide all RCTC's program management services, and that project has not been recompeted in a number of years. Some of RCTC's longer standing consultants that are integrated into their organization are not recompeted every three to five years. At this time, Commissioner Fermon left the meeting. 188 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 15 In response to Commissioner Jeffries' question when the BBK contract last bid was, Alicia Johnson replied that contract RCTC has had approximately 15 years maybe a little bit longer. She is uncertain when exactly that was, but she can look into it. Commissioner Jeffries replied so never in a lifetime of any of the Commissioners at the dais. Alicia Johnson stated likely not. M/S/C (Vargas/Speake) to: 1) Approve the single -year recurring contracts in an amount not to exceed $14,540,448 for Fiscal Year 2022/23; 2) Approve the recurring contracts for specialized services in an amount not to exceed $3,301,373 in FY 2022/23 and $3,825,214 in FYs 2023/24 — 2026/27; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. No: Jeffries At this time, Steve DeBaun rejoined the meeting. 7P. APPROVAL OF METROLINK OPERATING AND CAPITAL SUBSIDIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 AND RELATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Commissioner Wendy Hewitt stated that this is a lot of money and asked for a more verbal explanation from staff. Chair Perez suggested to Commissioner Wendy Hewitt that staff could do the full presentation or partial. Commissioner W. Hewitt replied a partial presentation. Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director, provided an overview of the annual Metrolink operating and capital subsidies for FY 2022/23. At this time, Commissioner Fermon rejoined the meeting. Anne Mayer stated this was discussed at the May 23 Budget and Implementation Committee. Since COVID ridership has been down significantly recent numbers at Metrolink show that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays ridership is at about 38 percent of pre-COVID ridership levels. Monday and Friday it is in the low 30 percent, so ridership is not coming back in spite of gas prices in the $6.00 and $7.00 per gallon range. Anne Mayer explained what they have clearly seen is that gas prices do not drive ridership, and this is what they saw in the recession in FY 2008 as well. Ridership on Metrolink is usually dependent on employment and jobs so what the Tuesday to Thursday pattern is telling them is that Metrolink riders have discretion as to when they are going to work. Most of them are probably telecommuting with traveling three days a week to their employment centers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. She stated although 189 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 16 service levels are coming back up, they are uncertain if they are not riding it because the service is not there or are they not riding it because they do not need the service anymore. They are paying very close attention to ridership numbers Metrolink staff is monitoring it on a regular basis so that they know what the trends are, but it is very clear especially if they compare what is happening on the 91 Line for Metrolink and all the traffic is back on SR -91 pre-COVID levels. Traffic is back on the roadway the express buses are full on the 91 Express Lanes, but rail ridership is not back, which means they need to diversify and try to find riders who want to use it on a weekend and look at what the schedules might be. Anne Mayer stated this is a significant budget, but it is also important for Metrolink that they try to encourage a little bit more ridership. It is a constant monitoring of the ridership, and she was uncertain if any of the Metrolink Board Members had any other additional input, but this is going to be an important year and a half for the Metrolink system. In response to Commissioner Wendy Hewitt's question if Metrolink has Wi-Fi on all the trains, Lorelle Moe -Luna replied no not currently, but that is something they are continuing to work on. Commissioner Wendy Hewitt replied that would make a big difference with people trying to work. Lorelle Moe -Luna replied yes that is something that comes up often in their customer service surveys. Commissioner Spiegel stated there are a couple of issues she wanted to point out is that they are talking about an ad hoc committee to try and get rail to the Coachella Valley and if they do not continue to support Metrolink they will be contradicting their own behavior by trying to push another area, so that is one aspect. The other is they know that the push from Sacramento is public transportation and if they are trying to convince Sacramento to allow them to fix their roadways then they need to support the same arena they are trying to get them to look at. Commissioner Spiegel expressed this is a time that they need to really look at the entire vision and picture and try to combine the Commission's vision with what is being asked in Sacramento and see if they can mold the two together and at the same time as Anne Mayer commented it is just keeping an eye on it so they can find ways to make it work. Commissioner Jeff Hewitt stated related to Anne Mayer's comment, in light of the record high gas prices that usually pushes people right out of their cars and into transit, however partially because people are telecommuting so much. There is also the public safety that has been number one in so many people's minds. He stated the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) just gave Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) a safety award when most people will not even go on it, because no matter how many sheriffs or security there are still issues going on. Commissioner J. Hewitt stated people feel safer in their car and they have got to overcome those things. He noted related to Commissioner Spiegel's comment the Commission is going out and asking for a light rail out to the Coachella Valley and SR -91 has always been congested no matter what the Commission does it stays congested and 1-10 is getting that way too. They need to really push forward, but there is a whole lot of issues and looking at Metrolink 190 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 17 wondering why ridership is not going up, but people's behavior is people's behavior, and they need to be able to pivot. Commissioner Middleton concurred with Commissioners Jeff Hewitt and Spiegel's comments and stated part of this is that they need to recognize these are national trends when it comes to public transport, and they need to be reviewing and examining some of their approaches to train service. She suggested some of their support of Metrolink is a critical part of that and one element she hopes they continue to address is that Metrolink has primarily been a commuter rail project and part of the future has to be that they expand opportunities for recreation travel using their public transport. Commissioner Speake concurred with Commissioner Middleton's comments and stated that one of the interesting things he had heard last week at the SR -91 Advisory Committee meeting was the number two busiest day of the week in the toll lanes was Saturday. People are not commuting on Saturday people are recreating and if they can find away to market to those folks to get on a train especially ones that are not concerned about when they are getting somewhere, and when they are coming back, and they have a little more flexibility. Commissioner Speake expressed he would appreciate that as being a focus for the Commission next year. Lorelle Moe -Luna expressed appreciation for a great discussion and stated last month the Commission also approved for RCTC to deploy a new program for free fares, which will begin in the fall of this year. She stated with utilizing the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds they hope to provide free Metrolink passes for all of Riverside County residents, and this will be done in coordination with San Bernardino through their IE Commuter program. M/S/C (Vargas/Spiegel) to: 1) Receive and file a report on highlights from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA) services; 2) Approve the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 SCRRA operating and capital budget, which results in an operating subsidy of $26,695,637 and capital subsidy of $10,391,915 for the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 22-25-090-00 with SCRRA regarding annual funding, including subrecipient matters related to pass -through of federal funding. At this time, Commissioner DeConinck left the meeting. 11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Anne Mayer announced: 191 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 18 11A. After this meeting staff will purchase a new remote so they can move their PowerPoint presentations through. 11B. Kroll Rating Agency has affirmed its rating of BBB for RCTC's 1-15 2017 Toll Revenue Bonds in the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Series. Fitch Rating Agency is currently reviewing the same series and they are reviewing it for the 91 Express Lanes for their annual review, and the results are expected next month, and she will report on that as soon as the results are received. 12. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 11A. Commissioner Betts missed the SR -60 Truck Lanes Ribbon Cutting Ceremony and would have liked to have been there to thank everybody involved in what was a fascinating project to watch. He expressed that he does not think he has ever been through a construction project that flowed as smoothly under construction as that one did and then driving it today it is just an amazement at how well that was done. 11B. Commissioner Reed announced on June 6 they had a Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Executive Committee meeting and Anne Mayer joined the meeting along with one of her staff members, it was all done by zoom and it worked perfectly. It created zero vehicle miles traveled (VMT) they got their job done very quickly and went about their business. He stated looking around the room here he wondered how many VMT they are using just to show up for this meeting and suggested the Executive Committee reconsider their decision regarding zoom meetings. Commissioner Reed expressed they have to be concerned about VMT and they need to start with the Commissioners. Chair Perez replied point well taken Commissioner Reed. 11C. Commissioner Conder stated he did attend the SR -60 Truck Lane Ribbon Cutting Ceremony and thanked Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director John Standiford, and the entire team as it was an amazing project. He remembered when the Badlands Area did not have any k -rails in between the lanes as it was a death trap up there and going out to the ribbon cutting was his first time going through it and it was amazing. Commissioner Conder noted that per Anne Mayer there was 400,000 -man hours, one minor first aid issue, under budget and done under time and he expressed that does not happen in government, but they are Riverside County, and they know how to do it. He congratulated and thanked everybody for all that they do. 11D. Commissioner Spiegel stated that she was unable to attend the ribbon cutting, but it has been a pleasure to drive through that on SR -60 since the upgrade as it is 192 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 19 incredibly different, and she concurred with all Commissioner Betts' comments. In response to Commissioner Reed's comments as she cannot agree with him more, but the problem is the Commission's decision to do this is under the emergency order and AB 361. She asked Steve DeBaun to explain why that is a challenge, because all the Commissioners would prefer to do meetings via zoom. At this time, Commissioner Deconinck rejoined the meeting. Steve DeBaun explained under AB 361 the purpose of that legislation clearly was to address the pandemic and the concerns regarding health of individuals attending public board meetings. In order to make the findings that are required under AB 361 they have to be health based and they have to be based on the continued emergency order, which exists and also continuing concerns regarding contagions by being in proximity with others. He stated they have to be careful when they make those findings as they can still make them because the pandemic is still present, and people are still getting sick. However, the findings have to be based on concerns regarding health and they cannot be based on other issues that might be raised. He believes they can still make those findings, but he cautioned that when they make those findings, they make them for health reasons under AB 361. Steve DeBaun noted if this is a topic for conversation, he recommended they agendize it for the next Commission meeting and not have a full discussion of that here since it is not on the agenda or recommended that they could reopen the consent calendar item and discuss it. Commissioner Spiegel asked if there is any outlook for a possibility of that moving forward outside of the pandemic, because having the benefit of being able to do that and it has been done with the committee meetings. She noted in the pandemic it was a necessity and yet they have now found it as being a benefit. Steven DeBaun replied there are a couple of bills that are still active that are working their way through the legislature. He suggested the legislature is doing it in its own sort of pretzel style manner of not being very direct about things, but there are several bills that would allow the use of remote video and other remote meetings without the need for a health finding. They would require other findings by the agency with regards to RCTC there would be no difficulty under the currently proposed legislation to make those findings. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's clarification about the distance, Steven DeBaun replied the findings it is really more permission based. If he recalls correctly the board has to provide permission to the members to attend remotely otherwise, they will have to go back to the old style, which they would have to post the agendas on their front doors and allow the public into their homes, but the board can make a finding they do not have to do that. He stated that is the 193 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 20 legislation that he is aware of as of about two weeks ago, but he has not looked at it recently. Chair Perez suggested to agendize this for the next Commission meeting. 11E. Commissioner Harnik expressed not being able to attend the SR -60 Truck Lane Ribbon Cutting Ceremony but representing RCTC she sits on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), so she was at SCAG that day. She stated after they heard about the legislation that is being proposed by Mr. Knudsen it begs the question would the SR -60 Truck Lanes project have been allowed if that legislation was in place when all that process happened. Maybe they would not of had the SR -60 today if that legislation is approved and suggested that they need to really think about that and that should be substantial motivation to contact their legislators. 11F. Commissioner Weill related to Commissioner Reed's comments and stated necessity is the mother of invention and as a result of the pandemic obviously the invention was the convenience of having remote meetings. That does not eliminate the fact that the justification was and still is for health reasons, but more meetings are going to be handled on a remote basis. He noted technologically they are so far advanced now, much more advanced than the beginning of the pandemic. There is a certain degree of convenience, granted it maybe more self- serving for some of the Commissioners that have to travel longer distances and it does not mean that every meeting has to be live as there can be an option on certain meetings as well. He suggested to the Executive Committee to consider the opportunity to have the meetings remotely as more meetings are going to be justified and they are going to find that the Governor and Sacramento are going to introduce legislation to make it permanent and not merely based upon an executive order. Chair Perez stated this is going to be on the agenda for the July Commission meeting so if they could wait until then. Steven DeBaun replied he does not think they have violated anything yet, but he certainly would recommend that they move on from this subject. 11G. Commissioner Vargas announced the city of Perris is having their Annual Rods & Rails Event on June 11 at the Southern California Railway Museum. 11H. Commissioner Conder announced the Concert for Heroes is being held at the Riverside National Cemetery on July 3 from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Anne Mayer thanked Commissioner Spiegel for the reminder that this weekend on the SR -91/I-15 area has a full closure starting at 10:00 p.m. June 10 until early 194 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Page 21 Monday morning. She stated to pay attention to those construction alerts and construction notices and avoid the area. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Perez adjourned the meeting at 10:59 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 13, 2022. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Administrative Services Manager/ Clerk of the Board 195 AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Technical Advisory Committee Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program — Southern California Association of Governments 2023 Regional Program Guidelines — Selection Criteria for Riverside County Applications BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the project selection criteria for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6; and 2) Authorize staff to award projects based on the approved selection criteria for the MPO funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATP is a highly competitive statewide program that funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs to enhance or encourage walking and biking. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) awards 50 percent of the funds at the statewide competitive level, 10 percent to small urban and rural regions, and 40 percent at the large MPO level. The ATP evaluation process allows applicants in Riverside County two opportunities for award — at the statewide level and the large MPO level. As part of the sequential project selection process, projects are first evaluated statewide and those that do not score high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share. As the MPO, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is required to work with county transportation commissions, the CTC, and Caltrans to develop its regional program guidelines. Based on the approved ATP Fund Estimate, SCAG is expected to receive $137.68 million for the upcoming cycle, Cycle 6. Like past cycles, the SCAG share is split 95 percent for implementation projects and 5 percent for Non -Infrastructure (NI) projects and plans, which supplemented SCAG's Sustainable Communities Program (SCP). However, for this cycle, SCAG will not be utilizing the 5 percent share to supplement its SCP. Instead, the 5 percent share will be distributed to the county transportation commissions based on population. Table 1 illustrates this cycle's Agenda Item 7C 196 programming capacity for each county. The Commission will have approximately $17.69 million to award for Cycle 6 - $16.8 million for implementation projects and $884,000 for NI and planning projects. Table 1: County Share for Implementation and NI and Planning Projects ($ in 1,000s) County Population % Implementation NI and Planning Total Capacity Imperial 1% $1,249 $66 $1,315 Los Angeles 53% $69,579 $3,662 $73,241 Orange 17% $22,144 $1,165 $23,309 Riverside 13% $16,802 $884 $17,686 San Bernardino 12% $15,159 $798 $15,957 Ventura 4% $5,863 $309 $6,172 100% $130,795 $6,884 $137,680 DISCUSSION: Implementation Projects As part of the development of the regional program guidelines, SCAG allows each county transportation commission to assign up to 20 points to the CTC's statewide project scores. Each county transportation commission in the SCAG region is responsible for defining "plans" and developing its guidance and methodology for assigning the 20 points. The points distribution approved for the last cycle, Cycle 5, is provided in Table 2. The points distribution allowed the Commission to meet its goal of awarding projects that were construction ready and rewarding agencies that invested in pre -construction activities. Additionally, as an unexpected result, the Commission was able to award projects that were unsuccessful in prior cycles. Table 2: ATP Cycle 5 20 -Point Distribution Criteria Points 1. Requesting construction -only funding 6 2. Construction funding in the first two years of programming & PA/ED (environmental) completed 10 3. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub -regional Active Transportation Plan or CVAG Non -Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan, bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan 4 For Cycle 6, staff is proposing minor revisions to the points distribution methodology. With the passage of the new federal transportation bill, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Cycle 6 includes more federal dollars compared to Cycle 5. More federal dollars may lead to more projects being subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements which prolong project delivery timelines. To manage this program change, Commission staff is proposing to update the methodology, as presented in Table 3. The revised point distribution Agenda Item 7C 197 continues to reflect the Commission's goal of funding projects that are construction -ready and reward agencies that have invested or will invest in pre -construction activities. Lastly, at the March 2022 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, TAC members suggested offering partial funding for applicants that have initiated the environmental process. This suggestion is incorporated into the new recommended 20 -point distribution. Table 3: Recommended 20 -Point Distribution Criteria Points 1. Requesting construction -only funding 6 2. Construction funding in the first three years of programming 4 3. PA/ED completed — either CEQA, NEPA, or both 7 or 3a. PA/ED started — either CEQA, NEPA, or both (partial funding) 3 4. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub -regional Active Transportation Plan or CVAG Non -Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan, bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan 3 Proposed updates are as follows: 1. Award 4 points for projects with construction funding in the first three years of the program cycle. 2. Award 7 points for projects with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or NEPA approved. Award partial funding of 3 points for projects that have initiated CEQA or NEPA. 3. Award 3 points for projects identified in Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Sub -regional Active Transportation Plan or Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Non -Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan, bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan. In the last ATP cycle, to satisfy criterion 3, applicants were required to submit a copy of the CEQA and/or NEPA signature page to demonstrate environmental clearance. Commission staff provided applicants an additional six months from the CTC application deadline to submit the CEQA and/or NEPA clearance. Submitting NEPA clearance is only required if the project is already federalized at the time of application. This criterion was beneficial in the last cycle as it was the main criterion for award, and it allowed all awardees to receive state funding for their projects because they cleared CEQA. At the March 2022 TAC meeting, staff received feedback from the TAC regarding the deadline for applicants to submit their completed CEQA and/or NEPA to Commission staff. TAC members expressed a strong desire to have as much time as possible to demonstrate conformity with criterion 3. As such, staff is allowing applicants to submit their CEQA and/or NEPA documentation to staff by January 3, 2023, to satisfy criterion 3 and 3a. To satisfy criterion 3a, applicants will need to provide a letter detailing the environmental work that has been performed to date. Agenda Item 7C 198 Non -infrastructure and Planning As previously stated, SCAG will not be utilizing the 5 percent share to supplement its SCP for this cycle. Instead, the 5 percent share will be distributed to the Commission based on population share. The Commission will have $884,000 to award to NI and planning projects that are not awarded at the statewide level. Like with implementation projects, SCAG allows each county transportation commission to assign up to 20 points to the CTC's project scores and allows the Commission to establish any other eligibility criteria. Staff is recommending the Commission not establish a 20 -point distribution methodology for the NI and planning projects. Instead, staff is recommending to award funds to NI and planning projects that receive a minimum statewide score of 80 points with a maximum award amount of $442,000 per project. This item was also discussed with the TAC at the March and May 2022 meetings and the TAC members agreed with this approach. Next Steps Upon Commission approval of the selection criteria methodology, staff will forward the methodology to SCAG for incorporation into the SCAG ATP Regional Guidelines. The deadline to submit the ATP award list to SCAG for the MPO share is January 30, 2023. To meet this deadline and allow applicants maximum time to provide CEQA and/or NEPA documentation, staff is recommending the Commission authorize staff to award the ATP projects based on the Commission -approved methodology. For implementation projects, staff will utilize the approved methodology to assign 20 points to the statewide scores and will award the highest scoring projects. For NI and planning projects, staff will award the highest -scoring projects with a minimum statewide score of 80 points and limit the award amount to $442,000 per project. Any remaining funds for NI and planning projects will be utilized for implementation projects, and vice versa. Staff will provide the award list as an informational item at the next available Commission meeting, anticipated to be March 2023. Fiscal Impact This item does not have a fiscal impact to the Commission. The CTC allocates ATP funding to awardees and awardees seek reimbursement for eligible project expenditures through Caltrans. Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on June 27, 2022 In Favor: 8 Abstain: 0 No: 0 Agenda Item 7C 199 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bryce Johnston, Senior Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Reporting of Contract Change Orders for Construction Contracts BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Report of Contract Change Orders for Construction Contracts for the three months ended March 31, 2022. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the past quarter, January through March 2022, the Commission has had the following projects under construction: 1. Mid County Parkway (MCP) Placentia project 2. 1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange project 3. SR -91 Pachappa Underpass project 4. SR -60 Truck Lanes project 5. Downtown Riverside Station Layover Facility project 6. 1-15 Express Lanes project 7. SR -91 Corridor Operations project (91 COP) 8. 15/91 Express Lanes Connector DISCUSSION: At the direction of the Executive Committee at its March 2021 meeting, a report will be filed each quarter listing the construction contract change orders that were issued in the previous quarter. The following table summarizes the Contract Change Orders that occurred in the last quarter (3rd quarter of Fiscal Year 2021/22). Agenda Item 7D 200 Contractor Change Orders executed in the 1st Quarter of CY 2022 Project CCO No. Description Amount MCP Placentia Project CCO 14 Deleted work at Intersection Placentia/Indian ($724,774.00) CCO 17 Drainage system connection onto the private property $40,000.00 CCO 18 Decrease of 84 Inch Permanent Steel Casing ($57,800.00) CCO 19 Placing AC for overside Drains (small areas) $8,000.00 CCO 20 Install Headed Bars In Lieu of Hooked Reinforcement $4,000.00 CCO 22 Install Utility Conduits in the Bridge Sidewalks $35,585.00 CCO 23 Precast RCB Additional Sections $71,404.00 1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange CCO 25 Drainage system changes $14,796.57 Project CCO 52 Caltrans Location 1 left turn $80,000.00 CCO 54 In N Out Hand Rail $7,145.00 CCO 57 Soil Amendment - sulfur ($3,877.19) CCO 60 Backflow preventer: EVMWD spec vs Caltrans spec $8,385.00 CCO 61 Repair of chain link fence $5,207.40 CCO 62 Closure pour mix design change/ polyester overlay $35,000.00 CCO 66 Stage 2 Striping Changes ($3,190.15) CCO 67 Rapid Set Concrete ($14,105.00) CCO 72 TMS Repair $10,000.00 SR -60 Truck Lanes Project CCO 7-S3 Oil Index Adjustment ($127,686.31) CCO 69 Additional staging for remaining work on WB $22,741.58 91 C.O.P CCO 5-S1 Additional Traffic Control at Green River Road 35,200 CCO 7-S2 Differing Site Conditions 16,200 CCO 8-S1 Additional Electrical Work 40,000 CCO 16 Just In Time Training 4,400 CCO 17 Final Striping Modifications 30,000 CCO 18 Temporary Traffic Striping 25,900 CCO 19 Green River Road Structural Section Modification (42,400) 15/91 Express Lanes Connector CCO 12-S2 Supplement 2 -Provisional sum for all design work for EB 2.0 (replaces the 450k from CCO 12-S1) $850,000.00 CCO 19 Design for New TTMS Pole Heights $15,000.00 FISCAL IMPACT: The Contract Change Orders were executed using available contingency authorized with the construction contract for each project. Agenda Item 7D 201 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2022 State Route 91 Implementation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2022 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2002, AB 1010 authored by former Assemblyman Lou Correa allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise from the California Private Transportation Company. OCTA completed the purchase agreement in January 2003, at a cost of $207.5 million. AB 1010 also eliminated the existing non -compete clause in the franchise agreement that prohibited any capacity -enhancing improvements from being made to SR -91 until the year 2030. The purchase of the 91 Express Lanes and the elimination of the non - compete clause allowed much needed improvements to be planned and implemented within the SR -91 corridor. Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, the Commission, and OCTA have been coordinating these improvements. In 2008, SB 1316's passage authorized an extension of OCTA's tolling authority to 2065 and for the Commission to impose tolls and fees for 50 years on transportation facilities and to use toll revenues to construct, operate, and maintain toll facilities on SR -91 in Riverside County. SB 1316 also required the creation of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee with specific responsibilities composed of board members from the Commission and OCTA. SB 1316 also required the continuation of annual updates of an implementation plan of SR -91 improvements for the Legislature initially required under AB 1010. Consistent with the legislation, OCTA and the Commission in consultation with Caltrans completed the 2022 State Route 91 Implementation Plan (attached). The plan details proposed projects and completion schedules for transportation improvements to Metrolink, express bus, express lanes, freeways and interchanges, new east -west highway corridors, and high-speed rail. SB 1316 grants the Commission the authority to expend tolls and fees on capital costs, operations and maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, debt financing costs, and administration. Any tolls and fees generated in excess of the expenditure needs (i.e., surplus) previously listed may be Agenda Item 7E 202 spent on transportation needs within the State Route 91 corridor from the Orange County line to Interstate 15. These transportation needs include transit capital, transit operations, and State Highway capital improvements for both toll and non -tolled improvements. As part of its annual budget approval process, the Commission approved the use of tolls and fees generated from its 91 Express Lanes operations designated as surplus for various projects. Lastly, staff posted on the Commission's web site the SR -91 Implementation Plan for public review and comment on May 13, 2022 for 30 days per SB 1316. Attachment: 2022 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Agenda Item 7E 203 OCTA STATE ROUTE 91 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P L A N 2 0 2 2 D R A F T ----W RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL 204 OCTA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STATE ROUTE 91 (SR -91) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN KEEPING MOTORISTS MOVING ON THE SR -91 CORRIDOR Every year since 2003, OCTA, RCTC, and stakeholders have worked collaboratively to review a program of projects along the SR -91 corridor. BENEFITS • Provides seamless connectivity between Orange and Riverside Counties • Increases travel options • Optimizes vehicle throughput • Reinvests net 91 Express Lanes revenues on the SR -91 corridor to improve regional mobility • Investments to date: $1.9 billion PROJECT COST COMPLETION (MILLIONS) c/2 11 -- cc 0 1-1— Orange County Eastbound Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71) $51.2 2010 Fifth Lane Addition (SR -55 to SR -241) $85.2 2013 Westbound Lane at Tustin Avenue Green River Road Overcrossing $43.3 $24.3 2016 2009 L'`, 0 W W J a Riverside County North Main Street Corona Metrolink Parking Structure $25 2009 91 Corridor Improvement Project (Initial Phase) La Sierra Metrolink Parking Improvements $1,407 2017 $6.3 2019 M c v Bi-County Metrolink Service Improvements $249 2016 Express Bus Service $6 2019 SR -91 Corridor Operations Project $38 2022 c 11-1-1 IF —y acv Orange County PROJECT SR -91 Improvements (SR -57 to SR -55) Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Improvements COST (MILLIONS) CURRENT PHASE $460 $34.2 Final Design Final Design Placentia Metrolink Rail Station $34.8 Final Design y --, Z Q Riverside County 15/91 Express Lanes Connector $270 Construction SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements $129 Final Design Improvements East of 1-15 TBD Environmental Bi-County SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector Sixth Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71) $380 TBD Final Design Preliminary Engineering LOCATION COST (MILLIONS) Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15 (Post -2035) $2,720 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail (Post -2035) Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (Post -2035) I $8,855 1 $2,770 - $3,200 WB SR -91 to SB SR -55 Connector Improvements (Post -2035) $75-$150 EB SR -91 Fifth Lane Addition at SR -241 $31 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements $76.8 205 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Section 1: 2022 Status Report and Update 1 Section 2: Implementation Plan 13 Orange County Projects 14 Riverside County Projects 18 Bi-County Projects 22 Appendix A - Post -2035 and Conceptual Projects 25 Appendix B - COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS 32 Appendix C - REFERENCES 43 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 206 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Previous law authorized the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into franchise agreements with private companies to construct and operate four demonstration toll road projects in California. This resulted in the development of the 91 Express Lanes facility in Orange County. The four -lane, 10 -mile toll road runs along the median of State Route 91 (SR -91) in northeast Orange County between the Orange/Riverside County line and State Route 55 (SR -55). Since the 91 Express Lanes carried its first vehicle on December 27, 1995, the facility has saved users tens of millions of hours of commuting time. While the 91 Express Lanes facility has improved travel time along the SR -91 corridor, provisions in the franchise agreement between Caltrans and the private franchisee, the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), prohibited Caltrans and county transportation agencies from adding transportation capacity or operational improvements to the SR -91 corridor through the year 2030 from Interstate 15 (1-15) in Riverside County to the Orange/Los Angeles Counties border. Consequently, the public agencies were barred from adding new lanes, improving interchanges, and adding other improvements to decrease congestion on the SR -91 freeway. Recognizing the need to eliminate the non -compete provision of the franchise agreement, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1010 (Lou Correa) (AB 1010) into law in September 2002, paving the way for much - needed congestion relief for thousands of drivers who use SR -91 to travel between Riverside and Orange Counties each day. The bill allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise and eliminate the non -compete clause that prohibited capacity -enhancing improvements from being made to SR -91. Although the 91 Express Lanes operate within a 10 -mile stretch of Orange County, between SR -55 and Orange/Riverside county lines the franchise technically allowed operation of toll lanes into Riverside County. The purchase agreement for the 91 Express Lanes was completed on January 3, 2003, placing the road in public hands at a cost of $207.5 million. With the elimination of the non -compete 2022 STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE provision through AB 1010 and the subsequent 91 Express Lanes purchase by OCTA, Orange County and Riverside County public officials and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating improvement plans for SR - 91. Senate Bill 1316 (Lou Correa) (SB 1316) was signed into law in September 2008 as an update to the provisions of AB 1010. SB 1316 authorizes OCTA to transfer its rights and interests in the Riverside County portion of SR -91 toll lanes by assigning them to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and authorizes RCTC to operate tolls for 50 years. In 2017, RCTC opened the extension of the 91 Express Lanes to traffic into Riverside County with completion of the initial phase of the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (see Appendix B). SB 1316 also requires OCTA and RCTC, in consultation with Caltrans, to issue an annual SR -91 Implementation Plan (Plan) for SR -91 improvements between State Route 57 (SR -57) and 1-15. The Plans prior to adoption of SB 1316 included a westerly project limit of SR -55. The Plan establishes a program of potential improvements to relieve congestion and improve operations in the SR -91 corridor. The 2022 Plan fulfills the requirement to provide the State Legislature with an annual Implementation Plan for SR -91 improvements and builds on the 2021 Plan. The projects included in the 2022 Plan have been infused with various sources of local, state, and federal funding. The 2022 Plan includes overviews, status summaries, and proposed costs and schedules for projects to improve mobility on SR -91. Also included are conceptual lane diagrams (as appropriate), and discussions of key considerations that need to be addressed in the planning and development of each project. This Plan will provide OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans with a framework to implement SR -91 and other related improvements. Future annual Plan updates will continue to refine the scope, cost, and schedule of each project included in this version of the Plan. 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY GOALS With the completion of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project's initial phase in spring 2017, there 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1 207 are now approximately 18 miles of Express Lanes between Orange and Riverside counties. OCTA and RCTC have adopted goals for the 91 Express Lanes to continue to maintain a safe, reliable, and predictable travel time for express lane users traversing seamlessly between the two counties. The goals below take into consideration the 91 Express Lanes as well as the SR -91 corridor at large. These guiding principles include: • optimizing vehicle throughput at free flow speeds; • increasing average vehicle occupancy; • balancing capacity and demand to serve customers who pay tolls as well as carpoolers (3+) who are offered discounted tolls; • paying debt service and maintaining debt service coverage; • generating sufficient revenue to sustain the financial viability of the 91 Express Lanes; and • when appropriate, reinvesting net revenues on the SR -91 corridor to improve regional mobility. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS Much progress has been made since the initial 2003 SR -91 Implementation Plan was approved. The 2022 Plan includes select completed project exhibits as a historical reference (see Appendix B). Completed Construction/Improvement Projects The following improvements have been constructed or implemented: ❖ Repaved and sealed pavement surfaces, restriped, and replaced raised channelizers on the 91 Express Lanes. ❖ On EB SR -91 the roadway was restriped, and the median barrier was reconstructed. This project removed the CHP enforcement area and extended the EB auxiliary lane from SR -71 to the Serfas Club Drive off -ramp. ❖ The WB auxiliary lane was extended between the County line and SR -241. This project eliminated the lane drop at the 91 Express Lanes and extended the existing auxiliary lane from the County line to SR -241 in the westbound direction. This improvement minimized the traffic delays at the lane drop area, resulting in improved vehicle progression. ❖ On WB SR -91 the roadway was restriped to extend the auxiliary lane between SR -71 and the County line. This resulted in a new continuous lane between SR -71 and SR -241. ❖ Safety Improvements were constructed at the Truck Scales. Existing shoulders were improved, lanes were re -striped, illumination improved, and signage was modified into and out of the EB facilities. ❖ Green River Road overcrossing replacement (see Appendix B). ❖ Metrolink parking structure at the North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station (see Appendix B). ❖ EB SR -91 lane addition from SR -241 to SR -71 (see Appendix B). ❖ Additional SR -91 WB and EB travel lane between SR -55 and SR -241 (see Appendix B). ❖ SR -91 WB bypass lane to Tustin Avenue at SR -55 (see Appendix B). ❖ Metrolink Service Improvements (see Appendix B). ❖ Initial SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) (see Appendix B). ❖ La Sierra Metrolink Parking Improvements (see Appendix B) ❖ Express Bus Service (see Appendix B) ❖ 91 Corridor Operations Project (see Appendix B) These projects provide enhanced freeway capacity and/or improved mobility for one of the most congested segments of SR -91. The completed EB SR -91 lane addition project from SR -241 to SR -71 (see Appendix B) has improved highway operations. This project reduced travel time by approximately 20 minutes during its opening year. The Initial CIP project has provided significant benefits to drivers on SR -91. This $1.4 billion investment project included widening SR -91 by one GP lane in each direction east of SR -71, adding collector -distributor (CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-91, extending the 91 Express Lanes to 1-15, and providing system/local interchange improvements. The new lanes and other improvements provide time savings, offer choice and reliability, boost safety, enhance access and job creation, promote ridesharing, reduce pollution, and aid the movement of goods along the region's roadways. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 208 The WB SR -91 Widening Project completed construction in 2016 from State College Blvd to Interstate 5 (1-5). This project added one WB general purpose lane and removed the dedicated exit lane to State College Blvd from the SB SR -57 to WB SR -91 Connector that contributed to operational issues due to the short weaving distance. While this project falls just to the west of the limits for the Plan study area, it will have an influence on operations within the Plan area. In addition, there are two projects that impact future SR -91 widening projects. The first is the $2.8 billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Santa Ana River Mainstem project that provides flood protection from the recently improved Prado Dam (near SR -71) to the Pacific Ocean. The project includes many features that have already been completed, including improvements to Seven Oaks Dam, 30 miles of levees and modifications to original project features including raising the Prado Dam embankment and installation of new, larger capacity outlet works. In 2021, the Corps and Orange County Flood Control District amended a cooperative agreement which would allow the Corps to use federal funds under the Bipartisan Budget Act to complete select features of the project. SR -91 project teams have coordinated with the Corps, Orange County Flood Control District, Caltrans, and other federal, regional, and local agencies to accommodate planned SR -91 improvements adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Completed Designs and Reports There are various project development phase documents (Feasibility Reports, Studies, PSR, PA/ED, or PS&E) that are completed, or are in draft form and anticipated to be approved that identify mobility improvements. These documents include: ❖ MIS — Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report (January 2006). ❖ Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan (November 2006). ❖ RCTC 10 -Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan (December 2006). ❖ SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study (December 2009). ❖ Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR -91 Corridor Final Report (August 2010). ❖ Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, approved August 2007 and subsequently renamed as the Capital Action Plan (April 2011). ❖ PSR-PDS for SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector (January 2012). ❖ Project Report & Environmental Document for 91 Corridor Improvement Project (October 2012) ❖ PSR-PDS on SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 (October 2014). ❖ SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Environmental Phase (2011) and Final Design (2015). ❖ 2021 Next 10 Delivery Plan approved by OCTA Board, (December 2021). ❖ Project Report & Environmental Document for 15/91 Express Lanes Connector (June 2019) ❖ Project Report & Environmental Document for 91 Corridor Operations Project (April 2020) ❖ Project Report & Environmental Document for SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector (April 2020). SR -91 CORRIDOR CONDITIONS Project Limits The project study limits encompass the segment of SR -91 from west of the junction of SR -57 and SR -91 in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, to east of the junction of SR -91 and 1-15 in the City of Corona in Riverside County. The freeway segment is approximately 20.3 miles long and includes 12.7 miles within Orange County and 7.6 miles within Riverside County. Existing Traffic Conditions Summary Similar to other parts of the state, traffic demand on Orange County roadways, including the SR -91 corridor, encountered significant variations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Stay -at -Home Order that was implemented March 2020. Traffic demand started to increase following the lifting of the Stay -at -Home Order on June 15, 2021. Daily travel demand on the SR -91 corridor increased by over 6% from February 2021 (before the Stay -at -Home Order was lifted) to October 2021 (after the Stay -at -Home Order was lifted). However, the October 2021 traffic demand on the SR -91 corridor was still lower than the October 2019 demand by approximately 0.5% (Figure 1). The peak period times as well as day-to-day 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3 209 csuFORNIA variations of congestion patterns still show effects from the pandemic when compared to 2019 conditions. Figure 1 SR -91 ADT (2021 vs 2019) 300,000 295,000 290,000 285,000 280,000 225,000 220,000 265,000 260,000 255,000 250,000 1 ■ 2021 ■ 2019 Due to the aftereffect of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 traffic patterns are not deemed as a true reflection of the typical existing conditions nor as a proper baseline to forecast the future demand and operations of the SR -91 corridor. Therefore, the 2019 traffic conditions are being utilized for the 2022 Plan. Traffic conditions on the SR -91 corridor are expecting continued changes due to uncertainties related to the COVID-19 aftereffect. OCTA and RCTC will continue monitoring the SR -91 traffic pattern changes throughout the year of 2022. If traffic conditions are showing a trend of normalization (reverting back to pre -pandemic conditions), then the traffic analysis will be updated for the 2023 Plan. A review of the 2019 traffic conditions in the corridor indicates that the existing capacity of the facility is inadequate to accommodate current and future peak demand volumes. Level of Service (LOS) F prevails in the peak direction during the entire peak period. The definition of LOS F is a density of more than 45 passenger cars/lane/mile and the worst freeway operating condition. The results also indicate that there are several physical conditions that contribute to unacceptable traffic queues. During the weekdays, westbound SR -91 experiences heavier traffic conditions during the morning commute for travelers leaving Riverside County to employment areas in Orange and Los Angeles counties. The corridor is generally congested between the peak period of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. in the westbound direction and the peak period of 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the eastbound direction. Due to the high demand, congestion in the corridor occurs before and after the peak periods. The eastbound afternoon conditions tend to be exacerbated by the lack of receiving capacity in the Riverside County portion of the SR -91 corridor. Accordingly, RCTC is working closely with Caltrans District 8 to sponsor improvements that will provide congestion relief for the eastbound afternoon condition. Some of these improvements include the 15/91 Express Lane Connector, SR-71/SR-91 Interchange, and Improvements East of 1-15. The following is a summary of the deficiencies identified along the SR -91 corridor: ❖ Heavy traffic volumes to/from 1-15 converge with the SR -91 and increase delay during the morning and evening peak hours. ❖ SR -71 traffic demand as well as physical and operational constraints for the EB SR -91 to NB SR -71 connector contribute to mainline and EB SR -91 corridor delays. ❖ Traffic entering the WB SR -91 from the Green River Road and SR -71 on -ramps contribute to mainline congestion during the AM peak period. ❖ High traffic volumes entering the freeway from Gypsum Canyon Road, Santa Ana Canyon Road, Green River Road, Weir Canyon Road, Imperial Highway and Lakeview Avenue contribute to congestion on the SR -91 mainline. ❖ One of the two lanes from the Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) connector is dropped at the merge to EB SR -91 causing additional congestion on the EB SR -91 general purpose lanes. ❖ At the NB SR -55 interchange with EB SR -91, a lane on SR -91 is dropped (as a dedicated exit) at Lakeview Avenue and a second lane is dropped (as a dedicated exit) at Imperial Highway creating a weave condition. ❖ WB SR -91 drops two GP lanes and a 91 Express Lane to SB SR -55, contributing to mainline congestion. This drop also occurs on the left-hand side of SR -91, creating a weaving condition. ❖ WB traffic entering SR -91 at Lakeview Avenue traveling to SB SR -55 contributes to mainline congestion by weaving across three lanes on SR -91. The existing two-lane connector from WB SR -91 to SB SR -55 traffic volume exceeds operational capacity causing a queue on the SR -91 mainline. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 210 ❖ A lane drop on EB SR -91 at SB SR -241 creates a 91 corridor. The subject matter of the multi -agency chokepoint. Logical Project Sequencing As noted, the SR -91 Corridor in Riverside County, in the EB direction, lacks the receiving capacity during the afternoon peak period which creates a bottleneck condition. Due to the high levels of congestion experienced on this segment of the corridor, there is sensitivity to any changes that may affect traffic operations. Without first addressing the congestion in Riverside County, any performance or capacity enhancing projects upstream would further exacerbate congested conditions causing additional delays and queueing. Therefore, projects that have the potential to impact demand and/or provide additional capacity in the EB direction should be considered in a logical sequence to ensure that there is sufficient receiving capacity in Riverside County. In October 2019, a consensus was reached between OCTA, RCTC, Caltrans, and the TCA that would set the stage for a series of projects to be implemented in sequential order to improve the SR -91 corridor. OCTA, RCTC, TCA, and Caltrans, Districts 8 and 12, as well as Caltrans Headquarters directors, worked through five major issues. This framework will enable the streamlining of the implementation of the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector project while minimizing impacts to the consensus is outlined below: 1. Setting priorities for SR -91 corridor projects to reduce construction -related impacts; 2. Allowing completion of the environmental approval process and updating related programming documents; 3. Clarifying lead agencies for final design, construction, and maintenance; 4. Identifying the principal funding agency for final design, construction, and maintenance; and 5. Designating lead agencies for retaining toll revenue and toll setting/operational control. Based on the above framework, the agencies reached consensus on a 91 Corridor program of projects and sequencing as outlined below: ❖ 15/91 Express Lanes Connector ❖ SR -91 Corridor Operations Project ❖ SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements* ❖ SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector *Note: SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector is not dependent upon completion of SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5 211 PROJECT SUMMARY The projects in this Plan are presented in the following groups: Orange County Projects, Riverside County Projects and Bi-County Projects. The stage of development for each project, such as planning, final design, construction, or procurement and implementation, varies as noted in the project summaries. Table 1 summarizes the various planned projects, concept projects, and completed projects. For details on each project refer to Section 2 for planned projects and Appendix B for selected complete projects: ❖ The Orange County projects have a total cost of approximately $529 million. The projects include the SR -91 improvements between SR -57 and SR -55, Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station improvements, and Placentia Metrolink rail station. ❖ The Riverside County projects have a total cost of over $399 million. The improvements include: a 15/91 Express Lanes Connector, the SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements, and the SR -91 improvements east of 1-15. ❖ The Bi-County projects benefit both Orange and Riverside Counties. The total cost for the Bi-County projects exceeds $380 million. The improvements include: the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector and a Sixth Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71). Traffic Analysis For the 2022 Plan, the traffic analysis for major SR -91 capacity projects used the Caliper TransModeler software model and traffic data calibrated to reflect existing traffic patterns of 2019 as described in the prior section. This traffic simulation model provides a better depiction of actual travel delays experienced by motorists compared to traditional travel demand models. The model can be used to analyze freeway bottlenecks sometimes neglected in traditional travel demand models. This approach is especially important given high SR -91 traffic volumes and the potential for relatively few vehicles to significantly slow down traffic. For example, a minor freeway merging area can cause many vehicles to slow, cascading delay through the traffic stream, and rapidly decreasing both speed and volume for major segments of the freeway. The metrics reported in the Plan include travel time Table 1 — SR -91 Implementation Plan Projects Project Cost ($M) Orange County Projects SR -91 Improvements between SR -57 and SR -55 Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Improvements Placentia Metrolink Rail Station SUBTOTAL 460 34.2 34.8 529 Riverside County Projects 15/91 Express Lanes Connector SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements SR -91 Improvements East of 1-15 SUBTOTAL 270 129 TBD 399+ Bi-County Projects SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector Sixth Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71) SUBTOTAL 380 TBD 380+ Concept Projects Cost ($M) Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15 2,720 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail 2,770 — 3,200 Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 8,855 to I-15/Cajalco Road Westbound SR -91 to Southbound SR -55 Improvements 75 —150 Eastbound SR -91 Fifth Lane Addition at SR -241 31 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements 76.8 14,527.8- 15,032.8 SUBTOTAL Completed Project Summary Since 2006 (Constructed Year) Cost ($M) Green River Road Overcrossing Replacement (March 2009) 24.3 North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure (June 25 2009) Eastbound Lane Addition from SR -241 to SR -71 (September 2010) 51.2 Widen SR -91 between SR -55 and SR -241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in 85.2 Each Direction (January 2013) SR -91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (April 2016) 43.2 Metrolink Service Improvements (June 2016) 249 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR -91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction 1,407 East of Green River Rd, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements (2017) Express Bus Service (2019) 6 La Sierra Metrolink Parking Improvements (2019) 6.3 SR -91 Corridor Operations Project (2022) 38 SUBTOTAL 1,935.2 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 212 from the beginning to the end of the study corridor and vehicle hours of delay experienced on study corridor, which both focus on operations for vehicles on SR -91. A third metric includes vehicles served by the system in the study corridor and takes into consideration vehicles on ramps and freeways that feed into or are fed by SR -91 in the study area. In addition to the existing year 2019 analysis, two future years of 2030 and 2045 were analyzed and include capacity enhancing projects that are scheduled to be completed by the respective year. The operations analysis quantified travel time savings for WB morning and EB afternoon conditions for the following major capacity enhancing projects: Year 2030 ❖ SR -91 Improvements between SR -57 and SR -55 ❖ 15/91 Express Lanes Connector ❖ SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements ❖ SR -91 Corridor Operations Project ❖ SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector Year 2045 ❖ Projects completed in 2030 ❖ SR -91 Improvements East of 1-15 ❖ SR -91 Sixth Lane Addition ❖ Fairmont Boulevard Improvements Westbound Analysis The WB morning (a.m.) traffic analysis results indicate that for the year 2030 forecasts, peak hour travel times are anticipated to improve in Riverside County (by about 6 minutes) and in Orange County (by about 11 minutes). In addition to decreasing travel time, overall vehicle hours of delay in the corridor will decrease (by about 20 percent), while the entire system is serving more vehicles (by about 9 percent). Bottlenecks are anticipated at the Orange - Riverside County line and at the SR -241 interchange/Gypsum Canyon interchange area. The main bottlenecks in Riverside County will be relieved due to the completion of proposed projects. The bottleneck at the SR -55 interchange will also be relieved. However, with the additional vehicles traveling downstream, there is additional congestion at the SR -57 interchange. For the year 2045, travel times are anticipated to decrease (by about 16 minutes) in Riverside County, and increase (by about 23 minutes) in Orange County when compared to 2030. Overall vehicle hours of delay will increase (by about 68 percent) in the corridor, but the number of vehicles the system is serving will increase (by about 6 percent). Bottlenecks appear at SR -71 and at SR -57. Due to the SR -71 Corridor Improvement Project, there is a large increase of vehicles going to and from SR -71. Travel time in Orange County shows an increase in 2045 due to the growth in traffic, projects relieving congestion upstream allowing more vehicles to travel downstream, and no additional capacity enhancing projects in Orange County. OCTA and RCTC are exploring multi -modal opportunities on, or adjacent to, the SR -91 corridor that could provide additional congestion relief. Express Lanes in the westbound direction operate satisfactorily in all the analysis years. Eastbound Analysis The EB evening (p.m.) traffic analysis indicates that for the year 2030 forecasts, peak hour travel times are anticipated to decrease (by about 7 minutes) in Riverside County and increase (by about 11 minutes) in Orange County. Although the overall travel time through the corridor will increase slightly, the vehicle hours of delay will decrease (by about 26 percent) and the number of vehicles served by the system will increase (by about 12 percent). The major bottleneck still occurs at the county line. Improvement projects near SR -55 and 1-15 should alleviate congestion in those areas. For the year 2045, travel times are anticipated to increase (by about 4 minutes) in Riverside County and decrease in Orange County (by about 18 minutes) when compared to 2030. Overall vehicle hours of delay will increase (by about 40 percent) but the number of vehicles the system is serving will be greater (by about 8 percent). The main bottleneck remains at the county line. However, with the inclusion of the Sixth Lane Addition project, the congestion at the county line will be reduced. More vehicles traveling downstream will slightly increase congestion in Riverside County near 1-15. Express Lanes in the eastbound direction operate satisfactorily in all the analysis years. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7 213 Figures 1-1 and 1-2 below summarize the westbound corridor vehicle hours of delay and systemwide served vehicles, respectively. Figures 1-3 and 1-4 below summarize the eastbound corridor vehicle hours of delay and systemwide served vehicles, respectively. Figure 1-1 — Westbound SR -91 from 1-15 to SR -57 A.M. Peak Period Corridor Vehicle Hours of Delay 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8 214 Figure 1-2 — Westbound SR -91 from 1-15 to SR -57 A.M. Peak Period Systemwide Served Vehicles Figure 1-3 — Eastbound SR -91 from SR -57 to 1-15 P.M. Peak Period Corridor Vehicle Hours of Delay 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 215 9 Figure 1-4 — Eastbound SR -91 from SR -57 to 1-15 P.M. Peak Period Systemwide Served Vehicles 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Year2019 Year2030 Year2045 r 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 10 216 CONCEPT PROJECT SUMMARY Many of the highway concept projects identified in this 2022 Plan are long lead time projects and/or projects without sufficient project development detail to be advanced into the Project Summary section. These potential concepts include significant environmental constraints and right of way requirements in addition to requiring a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. Many of these concept projects are multi -billion -dollar improvements that will remain a challenge to implement. Refer to Appendix A for details on each concept project. IRVINE CORONA EXPRESSWAY STATUS SUMMARY The Irvine Corona Expressway (ICE) concept was conceived as part of the MIS and was established as part of a suite of projects to support future peak demand volumes between Riverside and Orange Counties. The ICE was further evaluated in the 2009 ICE Feasibility Study for financial and geotechnical feasibility. Seven (7) primary feasibility issues were considered: ❖ Geologic, hydrogeologic/hydrologic, and geotechnical conditions. ❖ Corridor concepts (full tunnel and partial tunnel/partial surface road). Tunnel configuration. Tunnel excavation and support methods. Tunnel systems (e.g., ventilation, emergency fire system, operation building, toll system, etc.). ❖ Construction considerations. ❖ Construction, Operation & Maintenance (O&M) costs. Per the direction of the Riverside -Orange Corridor Authority Board (ROCA) in 2010, staff has reevaluated the concept annually, as part of the preparation of this Plan, to determine if construction costs and tunneling technology have changed and become less prohibitive. Planned and constructed tunnel projects were reviewed for insight into how tunnel construction technology is changing. Projects such as the Las Vegas csuFORNIA Convention Center (LVCC) Loop and the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Loop are utilizing innovative ideas that could deliver transit tunnel projects with faster construction timelines and at a lower cost. These projects propose smaller diameter tunnels (12-14 feet) and are designed to accommodate specialized vehicles with the intent of eventually incorporating autonomous electric vehicles. The Boring Company constructed the 1.7 -mile LVCC Loop dual tunnels for $52.5 million over approximately two years. The current estimated cost (including all phases and support) for the 4 -mile ONT Loop is $85 million and is expected to take 48 months to complete. The Boring Company plans to develop technology to construct tunnels faster and at lower cost. To accomplish this, The Boring Company plans to reduce tunnel diameters and increase the speed and efficiency of tunnel boring machines (TBM). Additional initiatives include electrifying and automating TBMs to increase safety and efficiency. Two shorter tunnels were constructed in California with similar lane configurations to the ICE concept. The Devil's Slide Tunnel in San Mateo County and the Caldecott Fourth Bore Tunnel in Contra Costa County both opened in 2013. These tunnels used a method of drilling and blasting (known as the New Austrian Tunneling Method), rather than operating a TBM. Both tunnels were approximately 1.2 miles long and took six years and three years to construct, respectively. Based on recent tunnel projects, the challenges that were identified in the ICE Feasibility Study were also experienced by other tunnel construction projects which provides insight into how tunneling technologies have changed. The New Austrian Tunneling Method may be a way to reduce the cost of boring for the ICE tunnel. This method was discussed in the 2009 ICE Feasibility Study but was dismissed due to the proposed length of the ICE tunnel concept. In the future, more investigation would be required to assess the feasibility of using a boring method other than a TBM, and to qualitatively assess possible impacts to the ICE corridor construction cost and duration. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 11 217 Reducing the bore diameter and proposed cross section of the ICE corridor concept may be a way to reduce the cost of the project. More investigation is required to determine how the cross-section and bore size could be reduced for the ICE concept. Additionally, there are several regulatory requirements that would likely need to be considered in designing the cross section. While it may be difficult to reduce the highway or rail tunnel cross section, a smaller diameter could be considered for an alternative design vehicle. The ONT Loop and LVCC Loop are example projects where smaller diameter bores were allowable for autonomous transit use. Even if reducing the cross-section and bore diameter may not be feasible, new developments in the form of autonomous boring machines may be able to reduce project time and cost. A tunnel project in Malaysia has utilized an autonomous TBM setup, and a tunnel in Sydney Australia is expected to deploy specially designed autonomous TBMs by the end of next year. With their consistency and precision, these TBMs may be four times as fast as the projected speed of conventional TBMs for the ICE. However, these cutting -edge machines have limited technical maturity. While there is demonstrated use for tunnels of diameters comparable to the ICE's 26 -foot rail tunnel, no autonomous TBM has been developed that could achieve the diameter proposed for the highway tunnel. A review of land uses adjacent to proposed ICE eastern terminus near the Interstate 15/Cajalco Road junction revealed much has changed since the concept was developed in 2006. Significant development has occurred and is proposed in the area which complicates the viability of the eastern end of conceptual alignment of the ICE. The review of recent tunneling projects shows feasibility for the ICE tunnel concept is slowly improving as tunneling technology is progressing. Technology has not advanced to the point where long, wide highway tunnels can be constructed at a lower cost. However, modern boring methods have lowered the cost on smaller, shorter tunnels. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 12 218 SECTION 2: OVERVIEW The 2022 Plan describes projects, key considerations, benefits, current status, schedule, and costs (in 2022 dollars, or as noted) for major projects and concepts. The projects are grouped as follows: Orange County Projects, Riverside County Projects and Bi-County Projects. The intent of the Implementation Plan is to present a list of projects and studies along the SR -91 corridor and highlight coordination between OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans to improve the corridor. As part of the project development process, detailed operational analysis will need to be conducted to evaluate operational issues associated with each project. The project development phases are discussed in the status updates and are defined as follows: ❖ Conceptual Engineering = Pre -Project Study Report (Pre-PSR) — Conceptual planning and FULL TON PLACENTIA ai.�arnoa IMPLEMENTATION PLAN engineering for project scoping and feasibility prior to initiating the PSR phase. ❖ Preliminary Engineering = Project Study Report (PSR) — Conceptual planning and engineering phase that allows for programming of funds. ❖ Environmental = Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) — The detailed concept design that provides environmental clearance for the project and programs for final design and right of way acquisition. The duration for this phase is typically 2-3 years. ❖ Design = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) — Provide detailed design to contractors for construction bidding and implementation. ❖ Construction = The project has completed construction and will provide congestion relief to motorists. Figure 2-1 — SR -91 Project Study Area from SR -57 to 1-15 YORBA LINDA ANAHEIM Bernardino CHINO HILLS NORCO CORONA 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 13 219 ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS The Orange County set of projects includes three improvements at a total cost of approximately $529 million (in 2022 dollars, or as noted). The projects include: SR -91 improvements between SR -57 and SR -55, Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station improvements, and new Placentia Metrolink rail station. Further details for each of the projects are included in the following summaries. Orange County Project Summary Cost ($M) SR -91 Improvements between SR -57 and SR -55 460 Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Improvements 34.2 Placentia Metrolink Rail Station 34.8 SUBTOTAL 529 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 14 220 SR -91 Im rovements between SR -57 and SR -55 Interchange improvements at Kraemer Blvd/Glassell St State College Blvd A SR -57 NB SR -57 On SB SR -57 Off On On SB SR -57 Off LEGEND Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp Kraemer Blvd Off Off On SB Off On SR -57 on Glassell St l A HOV/Express Lane A Tolled Express Lane Diverge for WB SR -91 and SB SR -55 Interchange improvements at Lakeview Av — SB SR -55 Drop On -Ramp Tustin Av n Off NB Tustin Av SR -55 SR -55 OH Off Off On On Off Existing Lane Proposed Improvement Lane Lakeview Av WB WB SR -91 SR -91 On Off On Off Project Description The project proposes to add EB capacity between SR -55 and SR -57, improve the SR-91/SR-57 and SR-91/SR-55 interchanges and local interchanges. In the SR-91/SR-57 interchange area, improvements identified in Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase include extending an additional lane on WB SR -91 from the NB SR -57 to WB SR -91 connector through State College Boulevard and terminating at the auxiliary lane to Raymond Avenue -East Street. At the SR-91/SR-55 interchange area, a drop on -ramp from Lakeview Avenue would be constructed between realigned WB SR -91 lanes for direct access to SB SR -55, allowing for the exit to SB SR -55 to be moved further east, separating WB SR -91 and SB SR -55 traffic west of the Lakeview Avenue bridge. The 91 Express Lanes will not be impacted by the project. In order to accommodate the improvements, the Lakeview, Tustin, Kraemer/Glassell, and La Palma bridges are proposed to be replaced. The improvements have been developed in cooperation with local jurisdictions and affected communities. Key Considerations The proposed project improvements on WB and EB SR -91 may require partial right-of-way acquisition and Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs). In some areas, a non-standard geometric cross-section is proposed to reduce the right-of-way impacts. Benefits The proposed project improvements on WB and EB SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 include, among other features, adding one EB general purpose lane to achieve lane balancing and interchange improvements. Project improvements will reduce congestion and delay and reduce weaving. Current Status The project improvements were originally studied in the SR -91 Feasibility Study, which was completed in June 2009. The Project Study Report was completed in 2014 and the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) was completed in 2020. This project was then split into three separate segments and the Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) phase began in 2020 for all three segments. The proposed improvements are included in the Measure M program. Schedule and Cost Construction is anticipated to be completed in 2028 and the total project cost is estimated to be approximately $460,000,000. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 15 221 Image source: Anaheim Canyon Station Project Definition Report, February 23, 2015 Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Improvements t9 <9A 9 THE CROSSINGS c<4, (TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT) ABANDONED TRACK EXISTING SINGLE TRACK BRIDGE (TO BE REMOVED) PROPOSED NO 20 TURNOUT 170' PLATFORM EXTENSION 680' NEW SECOND PLATFORM PLATFORM ACCESS PROPOSED MAIN TRACK 2 (MT -2) ,i0iiiiiiiiri,iiiiiiiii_iit%ii". htminir ri POSSIBLE � PARKING "� EXPANSION S AREA PACIFICENTER t Project Description The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Improvement Project will include the addition of approximately 3,400 linear feet of secondary track; a second platform; extending the existing platform; improvements at two at -grade railroad crossings located at Tustin and La Palma; as wet as new shade structures, benches, and ticket vending machines. These project improvements will accommodate planned future train service and will enhance on time service and safety. Benefits The project will enable future Metrolink service expansion, improve train service efficiency, and foster train ridership growth in the region, which will contribute to congestion relief on SR -91. EXISTING MAIN TRACK 1 (MT -1) [1( I l i JIluil,±yio. .r Current Status OCTA is the lead agency on the project. Funding for the project is programmed to use Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), 5307 Federal Formula, M2 (OC Go), and City of Anaheim funds. Schedule and Cost The plans were completed, and the project was advertised for bid in October 2020. Construction began in May 2021 and is anticipated to be completed in November 2022. The total project cost is estimated to be $34.2 million. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 16 222 Placentia Metrolink Rail Station Image source: www.placentla.org/Placentia-Metrolink-Slte-Plan (Walden Engineering) Project Description The new Placentia Metrolink Station will serve the Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line, providing commuter rail service between Perris and Los Angeles, via Riverside and Orange counties. The project includes construction of a parking structure, OCTA bus access, an area for passenger pick-up and drop-off, and two station platforms. Benefits The station will meet the current transit demand and foster train ridership growth in the region, contributing to congestion relief on SR - 91. Current Status The City of Placentia is the lead on right-of-way and environmental clearance, and OCTA is the lead agency for design and construction of the project. Funding for the project is programmed to use 91 Toll Revenues, M2 (OC Go) and the City of Placentia funds for the construction phase. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA), OC Go and City funds are programmed for the design and right-of-way costs. Project is currently on hold. Schedule and Cost Plans are 100 percent complete, however, the construction contract cannot be advertised until a Construction and Maintenance Agreement is in place with BNSF Railway, the right-of-way owner. The project will be advertised for bids once an agreement is in place. The total project cost is estimated to be $34.8 million. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 17 223 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROJECTS The Riverside County set of projects includes three improvements: a 15/91 Express Lanes Connector, the SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements, and SR -91 Improvements east of 1-15. Projects for implementation in Riverside County are anticipated to cost in excess of $399 million (in 2022 dollars, or as noted). Riverside County Project Summary Cost ($M) 15/91 Express Lanes Connector 270 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements 129 SR -91 Improvements East of 1-15 SUBTOTAL TBD 399+ i 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 18 224 15/91 Express Lanes Connector LEGEND Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp HOV Lane !A Tolled Express Lane Existing Lane 11 Proposed Improvement Lane Off Main St Off' to NB/SB 1-15 Off On' On On Express Lanes to I-15/Hidden Valley Pkwy McKinley St A Off On Pierce St A Off On At On Off On Off From NB 1-15 [�] Express Lanes to I-15/Cajalco Rd (by RCTC I-15 Express Lanes Project) Ell Project Description The Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) for the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), from SR -241 to Pierce Street, included the addition of a 5th lane in each direction, the addition of auxiliary lanes at various locations, the addition of collector - distributor lanes at the I-15/SR-91 interchange, the extension of the 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to 1-15, the construction of a SR -91 Express Lanes median direct connector to and from 1-15 South, a SR -91 Express Lanes median direct connector to and from I- 15 North (15/91 Express Lanes Connector, the subject project), and the construction of one Express Lane in each direction from the I-15/SR-91 interchange southerly to I-15/Cajalco Road (now part of RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes Project), and easterly to east of McKinley Street. Due to funding constraints, a Project Phasing Plan was developed to allow an Initial Phase, with reduced improvements, to move forward as scheduled, with the remaining ultimate improvements to be completed later. Subsequently, the proposed 15/91 Express Lanes Connector improvements (the subject of this project) have been pulled out from the CIP as a standalone project. Key Considerations Coordination among many of the SR -91 freeway projects that overlap the project limits is critical to successfully delivering these projects on schedule and within budget. Designing to accommodate future projects is a recurring theme for each of these projects. Minimizing conflicts in scope between projects requires direct coordination between each project team. Additionally, future projects frequently have multiple alternatives under study, each with differing scope and construction footprints. Specifically, the project improvements need to continue to be coordinated with the SR-71/SR-91 interchange and the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector. Benefits The 15/91 Express Lanes Connector project will reduce congestion and operational delays by providing direct median -to -median access between the SR -91 Express Lanes and 1-15 Express Lanes. Traffic operations will improve by eliminating weaving conflicts and out -of - direction travel along SR -91 and 1-15 by the use of the direct connectors. The project will provide motorists a choice to use the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector for a fee in exchange for time savings. Current Status The 15/91 Express Lanes Connector is currently discussed in the environmental document for the SR -91 CIP that was completed in 2012. An environmental revalidation was completed in 2019. A Design - Build contract was awarded in Spring 2020 and the project is currently under construction. Schedule and Cost Construction is planned to be completed in 2023. The total project cost is estimated to be $270,000,000. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19 225 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements Project Description The current project includes a new two-lane direct connector from eastbound (EB) SR -91 to northbound (NB) SR -71 and realignment of the existing Green River Road SR -91 EB on -ramp to provide connection to NB SR -71 and EB SR -91. Key Considerations Project improvements must be coordinated with the following projects: the SR -91 Sixth GP Lane Addition and the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector. Close coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also be required as the connector crosses the Santa Ana River west of the Prado Dam. Benefits The project will provide a new direct connector improvement from EB SR -91 to NB SR -71, replacing the geometric choke point created by the existing loop connector. The project will also improve traffic operations and operational efficiency by eliminating or minimizing weaving conflicts through the use of auxiliary lanes. Current Status The environmental phase was completed in 2011 and final design in 2015. An environmental revalidation and update to the final design is underway. Schedule and Cost Construction is planned for completion in 2025. Construction cost is estimated to be $129,000,000. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 20 226 Improvements East of 1-15 Project Description The Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) for the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), from SR - 241 to Pierce Street, included the addition of a 5th lane in each direction, the addition of auxiliary lanes at various locations, the addition of collector -distributor lanes at the I-15/SR-91 interchange, the extension of the 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to 1-15, the construction of a SR -91 Express Lanes median direct connector to and from 1-15 South, a SR -91 Express Lanes median direct connector to and from 1-15 North, and the construction of one Express Lane in each direction from the I-15/SR-91 interchange southerly to I- 151Cajalco Road (now part of RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes Project), and easterly to east of McKinley Street. Due to funding constraints, a Project Phasing Plan was developed to allow an Initial Phase, with reduced improvements, to move forward as scheduled, with the remaining ultimate improvements to be completed later. The SR -91 improvements east of 1-15, which includes extending an Express Lane east of McKinley Street and adding a general purpose lane to Pierce Street in each direction (the subject project), is a component of the SR -91 CIP that was not constructed with the Initial Phase. Key Considerations Coordination among many of the SR -91 freeway projects that overlap the project limits is critical to successfully delivering these projects on schedule and within budget. Designing to accommodate future projects is a recurring theme for each of these projects. Minimizing conflicts in scope between projects requires direct coordination between each project team. Additionally, future projects frequently have multiple alternatives under study, each with differing scope and construction footprints. Specifically, the project improvements need to continue to be coordinated with the SR-71/SR-91 interchange, the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector, and 15/91 Express Lanes Connector. Benefits The SR -91 Improvements east of 1-15 will reduce congestion and delays by providing additional SR -91 capacity from 1-15 to Pierce Street. Current Status Preliminary engineering is complete but may need to be revisited at a future date. The SR -91 Improvements east of I- 15 is currently discussed in the SR -91 CIP environmental document for the SR -91 that was completed in 2012. Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion and cost are to be determined. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 21 227 BI -COUNTY PROJECTS There are three Bi-County improvement projects that will benefit both Orange and Riverside Counties. These projects include: the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector and a Sixth Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71). The total cost for the projects is expected to be more than $380 million (in 2022 dollars, or as noted). Riverside County Project Summary Cost ($M) SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector 380 Sixth Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71) TBD SUBTOTAL 380+ 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 22 228 SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector operations along the SR -91 general purpose lanes while also improving traffic operations on the northbound 241 Toll Road. Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp HOV Lane Express Lane Entrance / Exit Buffer Tolled Express Lane Existing Lane Proposed Improvement Lane Other Improvement Projects Project Description The SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector will consist of a direct connector between the 241 Toll Road and 91 Express Lanes, carrying northbound 241 Toll Road traffic to the eastbound 91 Express Lanes and westbound 91 Express Lanes traffic to the southbound 241 Toll Road. Key Considerations The purpose of the project is to implement the build out of the Eastern Transportation Corridor as approved in 1994 in order to improve traffic operations on the northbound 241 Toll Road and the SR -91 general-purpose lanes while also maintaining reliable travel times and free flow speeds during peak periods on the 91 Express Lanes which were all key considerations in Caltrans' approval of the project. The project will require widening of SR -91 to accommodate the direct connector and associated Express Auxiliary Lanes in the median. The project's planned construction is aligned with the implementation of other planned improvements in the area including the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector, SR -91 Corridor Operations Project, and SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements. Coordination will be conducted with local agencies to ensure the project avoids impacts to planned bicycle and trail connections on Gypsum Canyon Road per the City of Anaheim General Plan and OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. Benefits The project will provide connectivity between the 91 Express Lanes and the 241 Toll Road, which will enhance Current Status Preliminary engineering concepts for a SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector have been developed by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/E TCA) and Caltrans, which were utilized for the environmental analysis. The 91 Express Lanes Extension and SR -241 Connector Feasibility Study was completed in March 2009 and was initiated to evaluate various alternatives. A Project Study Report was initiated in January 2011 and was completed in January 2012. The Draft Environmental Document was circulated for public review from November 7, 2016, through January 9, 2017. Caltrans's approval of the project with the Record of Decision was completed in March 2020. Final design is in progress. Schedule and Cost Agreements to document roles and responsibilities for F/ETCA funding, Caltrans construction, and OCTA/RCTC tolling operation of the project are under development by the multi -agency team. Final Design is expected to be completed in 2022. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 36 months beginning in 2023 with project opening in 2026. The total cost of the project will be approximately $380,000,000. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 23 229 Sixth Lane Addition (SR -241 to SR -71 Existing bike path will be preserved On`/ Gypsum Canyon d' On Off Lanes shown are for the SR -241/91 Express Lanes Connector ff Project widens all SR -91 lanes to standard lane and shoulder widths from SR -241 to SR -71 Coal Canyon Crossing County Line D Green River Rd 1 On A A On / Off .... Off Lanes shown are for the SR-71/SR-91 interchange east to north flyover connector for SR -71, and connector from Green River Road to EB SR -91 LEGEND Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp Existing Lane On Lane shown is for Green River Road EB SR -91 On -Ramp 4 Tolled Express Lane HOV Lane Proposed Improvement Lane Express Lane Entrance / Exit Other Improvement Projects Buffer 2 Foot Widening Project Description The Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) for the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), from SR - 241 to Pierce Street, included the addition of a 5th lane in each direction, the addition of auxiliary lanes at various locations, the addition of collector -distributor lanes at the I-15/SR-91 interchange, the extension of the 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to 1-15, the construction of a SR -91 Express Lanes median direct connector to and from 1-15 South, a SR -91 Express Lanes median direct connector to and from 1-15 North, and the construction of one Express Lane in each direction from the I-15/SR-91 interchange southerly to I- 15/Cajalco Road (now part of RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes Project), and easterly to east of McKinley Street. Due to funding constraints, a Project Phasing Plan was developed to allow an Initial Phase, with reduced improvements, to move forward as scheduled, with the remaining ultimate improvements to be completed later. The SR -91 sixth lane in each direction between SR -241 and SR -71 (the subject of this project) is a component of the SR -91 CIP that was not constructed with the Initial Phase. Key Considerations Coordination among many of the SR -91 freeway projects that overlap the project limits is critical to successfully delivering these projects on schedule and within budget. Designing to accommodate future projects is a recurring theme for each of these projects. Minimizing conflicts in scope between projects requires direct coordination between each project team. Additionally, future projects frequently have multiple alternatives under study, each with differing scope and construction footprints. Specifically, the project improvements need to continue to be coordinated with the SR-71/SR-91 interchange and the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector. Benefits The Sixth Lane Addition will reduce congestion and delays by providing additional SR -91 capacity from SR -241 to SR -71. Current Status The Sixth Lane Addition is discussed in the SR -91 CIP environmental document that was completed in 2012. An alternatives analysis to evaluate potential improvement options in the eastbound direction was initiated in 2020 and completed in 2022. Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion and cost are to be determined. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 24 230 APPENDIX A - POST -2035 AND CONCEPTUAL PROJECTS Concepts for potential Post -2035 implementation (potentially earlier if funding becomes available) focus on longer -lead time projects. This multi -billion dollar program may include: an elevated 4 -lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15; the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail; the Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -lane facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS Corridor B), Westbound SR -91 to Southbound SR -55 Connector Improvements, Eastbound SR -91 Fifth Lane Addition at SR -241 and Fairmont Boulevard Improvements. These potential concepts include significant environmental constraints and right of way requirements in addition to requiring a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. Concept Summary Cost ($M) Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15 2,720 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail 2,770-3,200 Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road 8,855 Westbound SR -91 to Southbound SR -55 Connector Improvements 75-150 Eastbound SR -91 Fifth Lane Addition at SR -241 31 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements 76.8 SUBTOTAL 14,527.8 —15,032.8 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 25 231 Elevated 4 -Lane Facilit from SR -241 to 1-15 (MIS Corridor A Shld 2 WB Lanes Median 2 EB Lanes Shld Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) Cross -Section Abbreviations: WB = Westbound EB = Eastbound Concept Description The improvements primarily consist of constructing a new 4 -lane elevated expressway near or within the Santa Ana Canyon with freeway -to -freeway connectors at SR -241 and 1-15. The facility may include managed lanes and potential reversible operations. Key Considerations Choice of alignment will be key to determining net capacity increase. Extensive right-of-way (R/W) will be required to implement the improvements if the alignment is not in the SR -91 corridor. When median connector projects or HOV/HOT projects are constructed and this 4 -lane elevated facility is proposed within the median of SR -91 through Corona, then extensive managed lane closures would be required during construction (thus temporarily reducing SR -91 capacity during construction). An alternative could be studied for the median Corridor A viaduct along with reduced SR -91 geometric standards to minimize R/W impacts. Also, direct connectors (such as for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) / High Occupancy Toll (HOT) at I-15/SR-91) to/from the median could be precluded by Maglev columns located within the same median area. Caltrans and Maglev highway R/W, maintenance, safety, and operations considerations would need to be analyzed if shared use with a Maglev facility were pursued. Additional mitigation costs may be required for improvements to SR -241 and SR -133 as a result of additional Corridor traffic volumes. Corridor A as managed lanes, with the extension of 91 Express Lanes to 1-15, this project concept may affect traffic distribution due to "parallel" tolled facilities. Benefits The concept would provide significant congestion relief by allowing vehicles to bypass the at -grade freeway lanes and local arterial interchanges between SR -241 and 1-15. Connections are proposed directly between SR -91, SR -241, and 1-15. Current Status This concept is identified in the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) as part of the Locally Preferred Strategy to improve mobility between Riverside County and Orange County. No project development work is planned at this time. Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion is post -2035 and construction cost is estimated to be $2,720,000,000 (2005 dollars). 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 26 232 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport Maglev High Speed Rail To A�[tg1M LEGEND Existing Highway - High Speed Rail Representative Alignment Proposed Anaheim to Ontario HSR Alignment Proposed Anaheim to Ontario HSR Alignment .1 REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENT SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY Concept Description Proposals for a new super -speed train corridor from Anaheim to Ontario are included in this concept. This concept includes an alternative that would use SR -91 right-of-way or would be aligned adjacent to SR -91 right-of-way or could potentially be co -located with the Major Investment Study (MIS) Corridor A alignment. Another alignment opportunity is being investigated along SR -57. Key Considerations Alternative alignment impacts to SR -91 right-of-way envelope and/or Santa Ana River are undetermined. The choice of alignment will potentially impact MIS Corridor A. Right-of-way (R/W) will be required to implement the improvements. Potential considerations for co -locating the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) train adjacent to Corridor A (and also SR -91) include providing a two -column structure with a barrier between the trains and vehicles. Caltrans and Maglev highway R/W, maintenance, safety, and operations considerations would need to be analyzed if shared use with a Maglev facility were pursued. See the MIS Corridor A project for additional considerations. Coordination with Metrolink improvements will be required. Benefits The concept would provide congestion relief by providing a direct high-speed/high-capacity connection with Ontario International Airport for Orange County air passengers and business next -day deliveries. Maglev will make the trip in just 14.5 minutes. Relieves congestion on SR -91 by providing additional capacity in the corridor. Current Status Since 2012, no progress on this project has occurred. Preliminary design, engineering and Phases 1 and 2 of a Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS/EIS) are completed. Congress approved $45M in SAFETEA-LU for the environmental phase of the project. Construction funding of up to $7 billion was identified through a loan commitment from the China Export -Import Bank. Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion is to be determined and construction cost is estimated to be from $2,770,000,000 to $3,200,000,000 (2012 dollars). 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 27 233 Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15 Concept Description The improvements primarily consist of constructing a highway and rail facility through the Cleveland National Forest with freeway -to -freeway connectors at SR-241/SR-133 and I- 15/Cajalco Road. The facility would essentially be a continuation of SR -133 on the west end of the corridor, to 1-15 on the east end. Key Considerations The tunnel concept is technically feasible based on the geotechnical investigation completed in December 2009. The initial project phase would be the construction of one 2 -lane highway tunnel and one rail tunnel. The second project phase would include construction of a second 2 -lane highway tunnel. Additional technical studies and geotechnical borings would be needed to refine the tunnel alignments and grades. Costs associated with the Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) tunnels are based on the Feasibility Evaluation Report completed in December 2009. A financial analysis will be needed for the construction, operations and toll requirements of the ICE tunnels. Land use changes and development have occurred in locations where this concept was conceptualized in 2006 which complicate the viability of original concept alignment. With further analysis, these changes would not exclude future potential alignment(s) connecting 1-15 and SR-241/SR-133 via tunneling through the Cleveland National Forest. Land use patterns in the vicinity of this concept will be evaluated as part of this Plan's annual updates. Benefits The concept would provide significant congestion relief by providing an alternative route between Orange and Riverside counties and would allow vehicles to bypass SR -91 between SR - 241 and 1-15. The concept would not disrupt SR -91 traffic during construction and would allow for additional route selection for incident management, emergency evacuation, and for continuity of the highway network by linking SR -133 to 1-15. Current Status On August 27, 2010, the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority Board took action to defer additional study of the ICE concept until such time as financial considerations improve and/or technological advancements warrant reexamination. Review of the concept shall be done annually through the SR -91 Implementation Plan update to determine if any of the major assumptions about financial considerations, private sector interest, or technological advancements have changed to make the tunnel financially viable. (See "ICE status summary" for further discussion). Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion is post -2035 and construction cost is estimated to be $8,855,000,000 (2009 dollars). 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 28 234 Westbound SR -91 to Southbound SR -55 Connector Improvements Interchange Improvements is map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps ari roducedwith permission Concept Description The project consists of operational improvements by modifying the connector to SB SR -55 from WB SR -91. The improvements would extend to Lakeview Avenue to the east and would include a new connector from WB SR -91 to SB SR -55 as a potential right-hand exit. Key Considerations Right-of-way impacts, detailed SR-55/SR-91 interchange improvements, and downstream impacts to SR -55 require further evaluation in a subsequent phase of project development. Conceptual design of SR-55/SR-91 would be coordinated with completed improvements at SR -91 and Tustin Avenue, and with the SR -91 Environmental Study Improvements from SR -57 to SR -55. This study is currently being conducted. Operational enhancements between SR -55 and Lakeview Avenue will provide some benefit for SR-55/SR-91 by addressing WB SR -91 weaving issues. In addition, the proposed WB drop - ramp from Lakeview AV has been designed to accommodate three WB through lanes on either side in order to reduce throwaway costs in the future should the SR -91 be shifted to accommodate a right-hand exit for SB SR -55. Benefits Interchange improvements are anticipated to provide congestion relief for WB SR -91 traffic and potentially improve the connection from WB SR -91 to SB SR -55. Current Status SR-55/SR-91 project information was derived from the Final Alternatives Evaluation and Refinement Report, December 2005, by the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS). Focused SR-91/SR-55 conceptual engineering needs to be scheduled. However, initial conceptual engineering was also studied as part of the SR -91 Feasibility Study Between State Route 57 and State Route 55 Interchange Areas in June 2009, and as part of the SR -91 Environmental Study Improvements from SR -57 to SR -55. Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion is post -2035 and construction cost is estimated to be from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000 (2014 dollars). 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 29 235 Eastbound Fifth Lane Addition at SR -241 Concept Description The location of the proposed EB SR -91 fifth general purpose (GP) lane addition (The Segment) is on EB SR -91 from Weir Canyon Road to the NB SR -241 Connector. The Segment consists of four GP lanes and two managed lanes (91 Express Lanes). Upstream (westerly) from The Segment the EB SR -91 has 5 GP lanes and the 5th lane drops to the SB SR -241 Connector as some traffic volume exits to the SB SR -241. Downstream from The Segment the EB SR -91 gains the 5th lane back as the NB SR -241 Connector merges with SR -91 in a dedicated lane addition. This 5th lane continues beyond the Riverside County line providing enhanced mobility. Key Considerations This segment with four GP lanes might be creating a traffic choke point due to the decrease of capacity, potentially contributing to significant traffic delays passing through this segment along with other traffic issues such as queue jumping, weaving, merging and operational speed differential. However, additional traffic from NB SR -241 to EB SR -91 and Gypsum Canyon Rd on -ramp suggest balancing the number of lanes should be carefully examined. As such, additional capacity will enhance EB freeway operations along this Segment. Benefits 1) Extends the existing 5th EB GP lane easterly and ties it to the existing 5th lane downstream. This could provide capacity enhancement and may result in removing an existing choke point. Significant delay savings is anticipated. 2) Potentially eliminate queue jumping in this area from EB SR -91 as well as Weir Canyon Rd. 3) Potentially reduce speed differential between through lanes, thus creating a more balanced flow. 4) Potentially provide balanced lane utilization at high traffic demand area. Current Status Additional traffic analysis and study is required to confirm the benefits to EB SR -91 by the proposed improvements. This location was identified by Caltrans as a high congestion location in the County. The concept is intended to improve the choke point that exists due to the presence of a 4 -lane segment between 5 -lane freeway segments. Schedule and Cost Total project cost, based on Caltrans' estimate, is $31.25 million Project schedule has not been determined. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 30 236 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements Project Description The project would provide a new interchange with SR -91 at Fairmont Boulevard. On and off ramps will connect Fairmont Boulevard from the north to eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) SR -91. The proposed interchange does not include a vehicular Fairmont Boulevard connection to Santa Ana Canyon Road to the south. A pedestrian/bicycle connection is also proposed between La Palma Avenue and Santa Ana Canyon Road. This bridge and pathway will allow for direct Santa Ana River Trail access from both Anaheim south of SR -91 and from Yorba Linda. Key Considerations Interchange spacing and weaving issues (to SR -55) need to be evaluated. Widening of SR -91 may be needed to accommodate interchange ramps. Proximity of the Santa Ana River may require that the WB ramp junction be located north of the river. New connection requirements and interchange spacing needs to be considered. Ramp and bridge placement needs to take pedestrian/bicycle bridge into account or incorporate the pedestrian/bike path into the design beyond the vehicular access limits of the project. Benefits The interchange is expected to relieve congestion at Imperial Highway (SR -90), Lakeview Avenue, and Weir Canyon Road Interchanges. Preliminary traffic modeling shows a 10-15% decrease in volumes at Weir Canyon and SR -90 interchanges with the interchange alternative. c^t,'CRNI4 91 Current Status The City of Anaheim completed a conceptual engineering study in December 2009 for the interchange. Multiple alternatives have been developed as part of the conceptual engineering study. Bicycle/pedestrian bridge is currently in initial planning stages. Project development is pending funding identification. On July 24, 2017, OCTA staff along with a senior staff member of WSP presented the findings of a 91 Express Lanes intermediate access study. The study provided various alternatives, traffic modeling, and financial impacts of the additional access. At the conclusion of the discussion, the OCTA Board of Directors did not authorize additional analysis for the intermediate access. Schedule and Cost Anticipated project completion is post 2035 and construction cost is estimated to be $76,800,000 (costs from 2009 Feasibility Study). R/W cost is undetermined. Cost excludes any potential impact to Santa Ana River. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 31 237 APPENDIX B COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS The following exhibits represent completed projects from previous Plans since 2006 and are intended to be used as a reference to illustrate the progress made since the inception of the Plan. Note: some projects listed in the Plan as completed (see Section 1, Project Accomplishments) are not included herein since there was no exhibit created or necessary for use with prior Plans (such as for restriping projects, various safety enhancements, minor operational improvements, etc.). Project Improvements Constructed Green River Road Overcrossing Replacement March 2009 North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure June 2009 Eastbound Lane Addition from SR -241 to SR -71 September 2010 Widen SR -91 between SR -55 and SR -241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction December 2012 SR -91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue April 2016 Metrolink Service Improvements June 2016 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR -91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of Green River Rd, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements July 2017 Express Bus Service 2019 La Sierra Metrolink Parking Improvements February 2019 SR -91 Corridor Operations Project February 2022 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 32 238 Green River Road Overcrossing Replacement Appendix Project No: B-1 Actual Completion: March 2009 Project Costs Capital Cost Support Cost R/W Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 21,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $301,000 $ 24,301,000 Completed Completed Completed Completed Project Schedule Caltrans Equivalents: Preliminary Engineering = PID Environmental = PA/ED Design = PS&E Abbreviations: CD = Collector Distributor Lane FTR = Future HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle SHLD = Shoulder 77' 138' Project Description Improvements primarily consist of replacing the existing Green River Road overcrossing with a new six -lane wide, 4 -span overcrossing to accommodate future widening of SR -91. The interior spans will accommodate up to eight mainline lanes in each direction including two HOV lanes. The exterior spans can accommodate two lanes, either for auxiliary lanes or collector distributor roads. Entrance and exit ramps will be realigned and widened to accommodate the new bridge, yet the interchange will retain its current configuration. New signals will be installed at the ramp intersections. Ramp and bridge improvements will be constructed within existing right of way. Key Considerations Design interface is required with the Eastbound Lane Addition from SR -241 to SR -71, SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements, SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project. and SR-241/SR-91 HOV/HOT Connector. Benefits The project will improve the level of service at ramp and local street intersections at the interchange. Improvements will reduce ramp queues that extend into the freeway's general purpose lanes, thus contributing to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status The project began construction in March 2007 and was completed in March 2009. 138' New Bridge EB L IN 1 i � �--E l � l iR i {lR f1R MOJ 1= full i ' nR SRO LAM WE Wei LAM W1e IARE LO ; 9HIb, OA 10'E 17 17 17 117 17 17 fi 17; 17 10';_t 10' 1 + WB WideIUre',WW1 VN[ LANE RE I1//Fj UPI 1rEay 17; 17.1 1rl 12'; 17 r GREEN RIVER BRIDGE CROSS-SECTION NOTE: All dimensions are approximate 79' 2118-,...4 i frR 0 Cb v'R san m ; eo snia, tr.!. 10' E 8'1 1�j 11' ; 17 10' 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 239 33 North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure Appendix Project No: B-2 Actual Completion: June 2009 Project Costs Capital Cost $ 20,000.000 Support Cost $ 5,000.000 R/W Cost SO Total Project Cost $ 25,000.000 Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction Completed Completed Completed Completed Project Description The project provides a six level parking structure with 1,065 parking stalls. The construction is within the existing North Main Street Metrolink station property in Corona. Key Considerations Proposed improvements were constructed within existing right of way. Currently there are 700 users of the facility, 200 more that were previously able to accomodate. Additionally RCTC has opened up the lot to park and ride carpools and vanpools and has issued over 120 permits for carpoolers to use the expanded station. This shows an added benefit of supporting carpooling as well as transit to offset congestion on SR -91. Benefits Demand for parking currently exceeds the capacity at the North Main Street Corona station. New parking capacity will allow Metrolink ridership to increase thereby diverting vehicle trips from SR -91. Current Status Construction was initiated in January 2008 and was completed in June 2009. The project was funded with Federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. PLACENTA ANGE rt.nsoft is map co YORBA LINDA ANAHEIM VILLA. PARK yrighted by Thomas Bros Maps an \\ CHINO HILLS 1 th X11 Metrdlink Parking Structure eproducedwth permission CORONA NORCO 0 lok 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 240 34 Eastbound Lane Addition from SR -241 to SR -71 Appendix Project No: B-3 Actual Completion: September 2010 Project Cost Estimate Capital Cost Support Cost R/W Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 41,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 51,200,000 Completed Completed Completed Completed LEGEND - Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp - County Line 7_7) HOV or HOT Lane = Existing Lane gm Project Improvement Lane ® Existing Interchange O `Off On Canyon Rd On Off l Project Description The project will provide an additional eastbound (EB) lane from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-71/SR-91 interchange and will widen all EB lanes and shoulders to standard widths. Key Considerations Coordination with the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Projects (Project #3 and #11) will be required. Staged construction would be required for all ramp reconstruction and freeway widening. Freeway operations would most likely be affected by this project, however, freeway lane closures are not anticipated. An EB concrete shoulder will be constructed with a 12 foot width to provide for future widening as contemplated by Project #3 and #11. Benefits The lane addition would help to alleviate the weaving condition between SR -241 and SR -71, as well as remove vehicles from the SR -91 mainline that would be exiting at Green River Road and SR -71. Current Status Funding is from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) with $71.44M approved, and the balance of project costs are from other sources. Construction began in late 2009 and was completed in September 2010. Coal Canyon WLC County Line Green River Rd 1 If On Off On Off ' I Off On On 1 1 Off On Off On 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 241 35 Widen SR -91 between SR -55 and SR -241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction Appendix Project No: B-4 Actual Completion: January 2013 Project Costs Capital Cost Support Cost R/W Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 65,005,000 $ 19,639,000 $ 573,000 $ 85,217,000 Completed Completed Completed Completed LEGEND - Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp - Existing Interchange ® HOV or HOT Lane Existing Lane ti Project Improvement Lane Auxiliary Lane Off LLakeviewwffAv On O 1 On Off On Off Project Description This project proposes capacity and operational improvements by adding one general purpose (GP) lane on eastbound (EB) SR -91 from the SR -55/ SR -91 connector to east of the Weir Canyon Road interchange and on westbound (WB) SR -91 from just east of Weir Canyon Road interchange to the Imperial Highway (SR -90) interchange. Additionally, this project would facilitate truck traffic approaching the truck scales in both directions. Key Considerations Caltrans is not considering relocation of the truck scales at this time. Benefits Alleviates congestion on WB SR -91 by eliminating the lane drop at the truck scales and providing a continuous GP lane to SR -90. Alleviates congestion on EB SR -91 by eliminating the lane drop for northbound (NB) SR -55 at SR -91 by providing an auxiliary lane to Lakeview Avenue. and at SR -90 by providing a continuous GP lane through Weir Canyon Construction was completed in January 2013. The project received $22M of Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding and $74M of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Augmentation funds. Truck Scales On Off On Off Gypsum Weir Canyon Rd on Canyon Rd 1 On Off On Off 3 On Off _ _1 On -11 -1 Off`�� NOTE: FAIRMONT BLVD IS CONTINGENT UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 242 36 SR -91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue Appendix Project No: B-5 Actual Completion: April 2016 Project Cost Estimate* Capital Cost Support Cost R/W Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 22,218,000 $ 16,382,000 $ 4,682,000 $ 43.282,000 Completed Completed Completed Completed LEGEND I Existing Highway Interchange/Ramp County Line • HOV Lane 4 . Tolled Express Lane Existing Lane Proposed Improvement Lane Project Description The project will add a westbound (WB) auxiliary lane on SR -91 beginning at the northbound (NB) SR -55 to WB SR -91 connector through the Tustin Avenue interchange. This project includes approximately 1.1 lane miles. Key Considerations Build Alternative 3 was selected from the Project Study Report (PSR). On Westbound (WB) SR -91 Auxiliary Lane from the Northbound (NB) SR-55/WB SR -91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange, and requires additional right-of-way. City of Anaheim utilities are within close proximity of the proposed widening section. Widening of the Santa Ana River bridge is required. Coordination with the City of Anaheim occurred for widening of Tustin Avenue and the WB SR -91 Off -Ramp that was completed in early 2011. Benefits The project would reduce or eliminate operational problems and deficiencies on this section of WB SR -91 including weaving and merging maneuvers. This project would also address choke -point conditions, which are caused primarily by extensive weaving between the NB SR -55 to WB SR -91 connector and the WB SR -91 off -ramp to Tustin Avenue. Current Status Preliminary engineering was completed and approved by Caltrans. The environmental phase was completed in November 2010, and design was completed in mid -2013. Construction was initiated in February 2014. The project received $14M from the Proposition 1B State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP), $14M from Measure M, with the balance from Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. Contract acceptance and open to traffic in May 2016. Tustin Av WB SR -91 Tustin Av On Off On i Lakeview Av 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 243 37 Metrolink Service Improvements Appendix Project No: B-6 Actual Completion: 2016 Project Cost Estimate` IEOC Service Cost Perris Valley Line Cost Total Metrolink Costs Project Schedule Complete 2016 $ 1,160,000 S 248,000,000 5 249,160,000 * Costs from OCTA and RCTC (in 2015 dollars) l J Project Description There are sixteen daily trains that run on the IEOC Line and nine trains running on the Los Angeles to Riverside portion of 91/Perris Valley (91/PV) Line for a total of 25 daily trains. The long-term service improvements will include 24 IEOC trains by 2030. The Perris Valley portion of the 91 Line extends Metrolink service southeast by 25 miles, from Riverside to Perris. The project is located within the right of way of the existing San Jacinto Branch Line through Riverside, Moreno Valley and Perris. Construction began in October 2013, cost approximately S248 million. and the extension opened to the public in June 2016. The inaugural schedule (December 2015) includes nine trains through to Los Angeles and 12 between Perris and Riverside. Key Considerations Construction of the new Placentia Metrolink station will improve passenger access to the 91/PV Line, by creating a station between Fullerton and Corona. Improvements at the Anaheim Canyon station are designed to account for future expansion of the IEOC rail service. Benefits Enables development of expanded Metrolink service, improved efficiency. and fosters train ridership growth in the region. which will contribute to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status Two additional IEOC Line roundtrips were added in late 2015, and in mid -2016. nine trains began service on the Perns Valley extension to the 91/PV Line. Trains to Los Angeles vie Futferton Perris Valley Line Travis to Central YORBA LINDA DAILY TRAINS Existing: 25 2016: 27 0. South Orange County p AHEIM II DAILY TRAINS Existing: 16 2016: 18 Bernardino CHINO HILLS CORONA WOMB MIMS Wi MON 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 38 244 Initial Phase CIP: Widen SR -91 by One GP lane In Each Direction East of Green River Road, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15 and System / Local Interchange Improvements Project No: B-7 Actual Completion: 2017 Project Cost Estimate' Total Capital Cost Support Cost Total Project Cost $ 1,161.000,000 $ 246,000,000 S 1.407.000.000 Project Schedule** Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design/Construction Completed Completed 2013-2017 • Cost obtained for Initial Phase is from RCTC (2014 dollars) " Schedule for Inital Phase; subsequent phase for Ultimate Project anticipated in 2035 LEGEND ... Existing Highway InterchangefRamp County Line Coal Canyon Crossing HOV Lane Tolled Express Lane Existing Lane Proposed Improvement Lane CD Road Auxiliary Lane * Braided Connector Gypsum Canyon Rd On T Project Description The approved Project Study Report (PSR) for the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), from SR -241 to Pierce Street, includes the addition of a 5th general purpose lane in each direction, the addition of auxiliary lanes at various locations, additional lanes at the SR-71/SR-91 interchange (Project #5), and collector -distributor (CD) lanes at the I-15/SR-91 interchange. Subsequently. the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) 10 -Year Delivery Plan recommended the following in addition to the PSR recommended improvements: the extension of the 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to 1-15, the construction of SR -91 (EB/WB)/I-15 (SB/NB) Express Lanes median direct connectors. and the construction of one Express Lane in each direction from the I-15/SR-91 interchange southerly to I-15/Cajalco Road, and northerly to I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway. An Express Lanes ingress/egress lane is also planned near the County Line. Due to economic conditions, a Project Phasing Plan was developed to allow an Initial Phase with reduced improvements to move forward as scheduled, with the remaining ultimate improvements to be completed later. The following is a summary of the deferred ultimate improvements: I-15.JSR-91 median North Direct Connector, and 1-15 Express Lanes North to Hidden Valley Parkway (Project #9); general purpose lanes and Express Lanes from 1-15 to Pierce Street; and general purpose lanes from SR -241 to SR -71. The 1-15 Express Lanes to be extended from Ontario Avenue to Cajalco Road are included in RCTC's 1-15 Express Lane Project with an anticipated completion in 2020. Key Considerations Coordination among many of the SR -91 freeway projects that overlap the project limits is critical to successfully delivering these projects on schedule and within budget. Designing to accommodate future projects is a recurring theme for each of these projects. Minimizing conflicts in scope between projects requires direct coordination between each project team. Additionally, future projects frequently have multiple alternatives under study, each with differing scope and construction footprints. Specifically, the project improvements need to continue to be coordinated with the SR-71/SR-91 Interchange, the SR -241/91 Express Connector, and RCTC's 1-15 Express Lane Project. Benefits The Initial Phase and Ultimate CIP projects will reduce congestion and delays by providing additional SR -91 capacity from SR -241 to Pierce Street, along 1-15 from SR -91 to Cajalco Road to the south, and to Hidden Valley Parkway to the north. Traffic operations will improve by eliminating or reducing weaving conflicts along SR -91 and 1-15 by the use of CD roads and auxiliary lanes. The project will provide motorists a choice to use Express Lanes for a fee in exchange for time savings. Current Status The environmental phase was completed in Fall 2012 A Design -Build contractor was selected in May 2013 and construction activities began in early 2014 for the Initial Phase. The project is anticpated to open to traffic in Spring 2017 with final project acceptance anticipated at the end of 2017. r Coal Canyon Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111111111111 On 1 1 1 Ingress/Egress lanes shown within the Express Lanes by restriping County Line ir Green River Rd 1 0 - Auto Center Dr Maple St On' Oft' from to Auto Maple St Center Dr to Maple St 4110 Serfas Club Dr On' frrrn Surfas Cave Dry .m Lincoln Av A Off Or 1 Orr to Main St Main St A Off Off to 1.15 3 -Lane CD Road Connector from Main St EB on -ramp braid to join SR -91 as a merge ramp On From On NB From 1-15 SB 1-15 On' On' From From Main SB St 1-15 A Off to NBISB 1-15 T HOVIHOT lanes to I-15/Ontario Av On From NB 1-15 McKinley St Or Pierce St A Off On n Of Additional lane by restripe of existing lanes 245 Express Bus Service Improvements FULL TON PLACENTIA Anaheim Resort YORBA LINDA ANAHEIM _Village at Orange 1 7 To South Coast Metro Project Description Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), operate Express Bus service between Riverside and Orange counties. Commuters lack direct transit connections to some Orange County employment centers not served by Metrolink. The Express Bus service provides this connection. Existing Service OCTA has operated Route 794 since 2006 from Riverside County to Hutton Centre and South Coast Metro (shown in orange above). On Route 794, OCTA removed trips to Corona in February 2018 based on low ridership. OCTA currently operates six morning westbound trips and five afternoon eastbound trips to/from the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Two new Express Bus routes were implemented by RTA in January 2018 between Riverside County and Orange County including RTA Route 200 (shown in blue above) from San Bernardino/Riverside to the Anaheim Resort. The route provides hourly service on weekdays and 90-120 minute service on weekends with a fleet of six buses. RTA Route 205 (shown in green above) from Lake Elsinore/Temecula/ Corona to the Village at Orange includes three AM and three PM roundtrips with 3 buses. New Service The Express Bus Routes have been fully implemented as of FY19 and there are no planned service additions. Changes to routes may be made in the future based on available funding and ridership demand. To Riverside To Corona Temecula Transit Center CORONA — OCTA Route 794 RTA Route 200 - RTA Route 205 Key Considerations Intercounty Express Bus service is effective between locations where transit travel times by Express Bus would be more competitive than Metrolink and connecting rail feeder buses. Benefits Express Bus services contribute to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status Since completion of the 91 Express Lanes, RTA more than doubled its Express Bus service on SR -91. Currently, OCTA operates 11 bus trips per day on SR -91. RTA now operates 47 trips on weekdays (up from 18 trips that Route 216 provided weekdays) and 18 trips on weekends (up from 8 trips provided by Route 216) on SR -91 Express Lanes. Service hours for this expansion is an extra 21,445 hours per year and is being served by five new coaches added to the RTA fleet. Schedule and Cost The Express Bus Routes have been fully implemented as of FY19. Ongoing operating costs average $4,892,000 per year and capital costs average $1,174,000 per year (2019 dollars). The annual capital cost was increased in 2019 to reflect the future cost of complying with the new Innovative Clean Transit regulation. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 40 246 La Sierra Metrolink Parking Improvements Image source: Riverside Transit Agency, April 2019 Project Description There are currently 1.000 spaces available. RCTC is implementing a parking lot expansion to include an additional 496 spaces and six bus bays to accommodate RTA Express Lane Service 200 that originates at Metrolink San Bernardino Transit Center with stops along Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station, Metrolink La Sierra, the Village at Orange, ARTIC, Disneyland. and Anaheim Convention Center. as well as other potential bus routes in the future. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Benefits The 496 parking spaces will provide for existing and future demand. The parking lot expansion will provide for ADA parking, RTA express service, commuter rail, and vanpool. Current Status Construction and project implementation has begun. Schedule and Cost Construction was completed in February 2019. The project cost is estimated to be $6,260,000. 41 247 SR -91 Corridor Operations Project Project Description The Riverside County portion of the 91 Express Lanes began operation in March 2017. Throughout the first year of operation, RCTC made minor operational improvements to improve the SR -91 corridor travel between State Route 241 (SR -241) and McKinley Street. In November 2018, RCTC implemented additional striping and signage improvements to westbound SR -91 at the McKinley entrance to the 91 Express Lanes as well as the County Line access location to further enhance efficiency along the westbound SR -91 corridor between McKinley Street and SR -241. In December 2018, the RCTC Commission authorized its staff to proceed with a project to construct an additional westbound lane along SR -91 between Green River Road and SR -241 (the subject of this project). This new project is now known as the SR -91 Corridor Operations Project (91 COP). Key Considerations The goal of this project is to implement a substantial operational improvement that is cost effective and timely to address the peak period bottleneck conditions along westbound SR -91 near the County Line. Key considerations include reducing impacts to adjacent land and local streets by the use of retaining walls and minimizing throw -away costs with future projects. Specifically, the project improvements need to be coordinated with the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector and the SR -91 Sixth GP Lane Addition projects. Benefits The 91 COP will reduce congestion and delays along westbound SR -91 between McKinley Street and SR -241. Current Status This project is within the footprint of the SR -91 Sixth GP Lane Addition project that was an element of the SR -91 CIP environmental document approved in 2012. An environmental revalidation for the 91 COP was completed in Spring 2020. Construction began in November 2020. Schedule and Cost Construction is planned for completion in 2022. The total project cost is estimated to be $38,000,000. 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 42 248 APPENDIX C " REFERENCES The following documents and resources were used in the development of the 2022 Plan. Data was provided by OCTA, RCTC, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), other agencies, and online resources. Measure M Next 10 Delivery Plan (Next 10 Plan), November 14, 2016 Riverside Transit Agency, Ten -Year Transit Network Plan, January 22, 2015 PSR-PDS on Route 91 Between SR -57 and SR -55, October 2014 PS&E for "Westbound State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane from the NB SR-55/WB SR -91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange", 2014 PS&E for Initial SR -91 CIP Project, 2014 California Transportation Commission, Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), Amended December 2012 M2020 Plan (Measure M), September 2012 PSR-PDS for SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Connector, January 2012 Project Report and Environmental Document (EIR/EIS) for SR -91 CIP from SR -241 to Pierce Street Project, October 2012 PS&E "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County", April 2011 Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR -91 Corridor Final Report, August 2010 Project Study Report/Project Report "Right of Way Relinquishment on Westbound State Route 91 Between Weir Canyon Road and Coal Canyon", May 2010 SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study, December 2009 Feasibility Evaluation Report for Irvine -Corona Expressway Tunnels, December 2009 Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR -91 lane addition from SR -241 to SR -71, May 2009 PSR "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County", April 2009 91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study, March 2009 PSR/PR "On Gypsum Canyon Road Between the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Westbound Off -Ramp (PM 16.4) and the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Eastbound Direct On -Ramp (PM 16.4)", June 2008 Orange County Transportation Authority Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, November 2006 Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) — Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report, January 2006 California — Nevada Interstate Maglev Project Report, Anaheim -Ontario Segment; California -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, American Magline Group, August 2003 Route Concept Reports for SR -91, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 Various Preliminary Drawings and Cross Sections, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 2022 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 43 249 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Timothy Green, Senior Management Analyst Hector Casillas, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements for On -Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 22-31-057-00 with Psomas for the on -call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term for an amount not to exceed $750,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders under the terms of the agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Right of way engineering and surveying services are necessary to support the Right of Way department's Commission projects, future Measure A highway and rail projects, as well as projects for the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), for which the Commission is the managing agency as of January 1, 2021. Right of way engineering and surveying companies provide boundary maps, monumentation maps, survey control maps, records of survey, parcel or appraisal maps, lot line adjustments, and legal descriptions and plat maps, among other services. These companies also meet the requirements of Caltrans in providing base mapping and pre -construction and post -construction monumentation. The Commission utilizes these services when acquiring property for projects or to determine property boundaries on property already owned by the Commission. Often, the Commission will call on these companies to stake or mark the areas of a property that are proposed to be acquired, obtaining useful information for the Commission's appraisers, right of way agents, and Agenda Item 7F 250 the property owners. The current on -call right of way engineering and surveying services contract will be expiring June 30, 2022; therefore, staff is procuring a new on -call contract. Procurement Process Pursuant to Government Code 4525 et seq, selection of architect, engineer, and related services shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Therefore, staff used the qualification method of selection for the procurement. Evaluation criteria included elements such as qualifications of firm, staffing and project organization, project understanding and approach, and the ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of a request for qualifications (RFQ). RFQ No. 22-31-057-00 for On -Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying was released by staff on March 24, 2022. The RFQ was posted on the Commission's Planet Bids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Through Planet Bids, 46 firms downloaded the RFQ; 8 of these firms are located in Riverside County. A pre -submittal meeting was held on April 5, 2022 and attended by 6 firms. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the April 11, 2022, clarification deadline. Three firms — Guida Surveying (Irvine); K&A Engineering (Corona); and Psomas (Riverside) — submitted statements of qualifications prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on April 21, 2022. Of the three proposals submitted, two were responsive and responsible as staff determined that the proposal submitted by K&A Engineering was non -responsive due to not meeting the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements set forth in the RFQ. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ, the firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFQ, the evaluation committee shortlisted and invited two firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the shortlisted firms — Guida Surveying and Psomas— were conducted on May 12, 2022. The evaluation committee conducted a subsequent evaluation of each firm, based on both written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer. Accordingly, the evaluation committee determined Psomas to be the most qualified firm to provide On -Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying services. The evaluation committee recommends contract award to Psomas for a three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $750,000, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. The on -call, indefinite delivery/quantity task order type contract does not guarantee work to the awardee; therefore, no funds are guaranteed to the consultant. Services will be provided through the Commission's issuance of contract task orders to the consultant on an as -needed basis. Staff will review the task orders by analyzing costs and comparing consultant's level of Agenda Item 7F 251 effort with similar task orders performed in the past. To ensure the consultant's price is fair and reasonable, the Commission's internal auditor is auditing the consultant's indirect cost rate, wages, and other direct costs. The Commission's model on -call professional services agreement will be entered into with the consultant firm, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff oversight of the contract and task orders will maximize the effectiveness of the consultants and minimize costs to the Commission. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for these agreements will be provided by various highway, rail, and conservation project budgets. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2022/23 and 2023/24+ Amount: $200,000 $550,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A, State Transportation Improvement Program, various Federal, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, RCA reimbursements Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 623999 81403 00013 0000 262 31 81403 654199 81403 00013 0000 265 33 81403 r22001 81403 00013 0000 750 68 81403 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/16/2022 Attachments: Draft On -Call Professional Services Agreement 22-31-057-00 with Psomas Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on June 27, 2022 In Favor: 9 Abstain: 0 No: 0 Agenda Item 7F 252 Agreement No. 22-31-057-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSITION 1B, FTA AND FHWA FUNDING ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH PSOMAS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES Parties and Date. This Agreement is made and entered into day of , 2022, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAN RT • r :_• N COMMISSION ("the Commission") and PSOMAS ("Consultant"), a CFe °°'' ORATI' ':. The Commission and Consultant are sometimes referred to herein in • : • uall s "Party', and collectively as the "Parties". Recitals. A. On November 8, 1988 the V authorizing the collection of a o "tax") to fund transportation and adopting the Riverside rside County approved Measure A (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the ovements within the County of Riverside, tion Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to alloc..= `he oro ds ` he Tax in furtherance of the Plan. C. On Nov- *er 5, - �2, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax . -dditional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improve'' ents within the County of Riverside. D. A source of funding for payment for on -call professional consulting services provided under this Agreement may be State Proposition 1B funds, Federal Highway Administration Funds ("FHWA") administered by the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), and/or funds from the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA"). E. Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain on -call right of way engineering and surveying services in the County of Riverside, California. Services shall be provided on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and the Consultant ("Task Order"). Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing such services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. 17336.00603\31171937.1 253 F. The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services on an on -call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein and in each Task Order (each such project shall be designated a "Project" under this Agreement). Terms. 1. General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the on -call right of way engineering and surveying services for the Projects ("Services"). The Services are generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Orders issued by the Commission's Executive Director or desig _-e. No Services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Ord- All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, t vant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by referen -, nd - '' - •plicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 2. The Consultant shall commence n receipt of a written "Notice to Proceed" or "Limited Notice to Proceed" from Co sion. 3. Pre -Award Audit. As a resul ' t► e• _ :I funding for this Project, and to the extent Caltrans procedures ap con tion therewith, issuance of a "Notice to Proceed" may be contingent •n c' pleb and approval of a pre -award audit. Any questions raised during the • aw. all be resolved before the Commission will consider approval of this Aare t. The ederal aid provided under this Agreement is contingent on meetin• a uirements and could be withdrawn, thereby entitling the Commission to urinate A• ement, if the procedures are not completed. The Consultant's files s ='i •e maim; `ned in a manner to facilitate Federal and State process reviews. In addition, th. •plic e federal agency, or Caltrans acting in behalf of a federal agency, may require rior to performance of any work for which Federal reimbursement is requeste nd provided, that said federal agency or Caltrans must give to Commission an "Authorization to Proceed". 4. Audit Procedures. Consultant and subconsultant contracts, including cost proposals and ICR, are subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, a contract audit, an incurred cost audit, an Independent Cost Review (ICR) Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, this Agreement, Consultant's cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is Consultant's responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA's work papers including making copies as necessary. This Agreement, Consultant's cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by Consultant and approved by the Commission's contract manager to conform to the audit or review recommendations. Consultant agrees that individual terms 254 of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into this Agreement by this reference if directed by Commission at its sole discretion. Refusal by Consultant to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of the Agreement terms and cause for termination of this Agreement and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. Additional audit provisions applicable to this Agreement are set forth in Sections 23 and 24 of this Agreement. 5. Term. 5.1 This Agreement shall go into effect on the date first set forth above, contingent upon approval by Commission, and Consultant shall commence work after notification to proceed by Commission's Contract Administrator. This Agreement shall end three years from the date set forth above. All Task Order wor should be completed within the term. 5.2 Consultant is advised that any re not binding on Commission until this Agreement Commission. 5.3 This Agreement shall rema unless earlier terminated as provided within the term of this Agreement, and deadlines. All applicable indemnificatio effect following the termination • Agr 6. Commission's the Commission's Executive Administrator for th Administrator"). C behalf of the Com Administrator shall als work as it progresses. other than the Commission ation for contract award is d and approved by the ffect until the date set forth above, Itant shall complete the Services ther established schedules and of this Agreement shall remain in tor. The Commission hereby designates or, o is or her designee, to act as its Contract e of this Agreement ("Commission's Contract ct Administrator shall have the authority to act on urposes under this Agreement. Commission's Contract d give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's ant shall not accept direction or orders from any person Contract Administrator or his or her designee. 7. Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Sean Smith to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her professional skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's Contract Administrator and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Services. Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Contract Administrator. 255 8. Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions herein. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are: Sean Smith, Dave Moritz, William Estepa, Tim Garcia, and Dannie Green, or as otherwise identified in the Task Order. 9. Standard of Care, Licenses. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately complete the Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and c•:, sistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professions the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant warrants that all employ:. d subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services ign-U them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commission that its :r ployees subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals • , ate -r nature at are legally required to perform the Services, and that such lice y' approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consul L;' shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement fr r - Co sion, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are cau • • o : ultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein and e fu responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities== • .:'ded +r in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from th _ ons . nt's ors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its sub -con n determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompe a t t to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of so p - -rty, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a ner acce. ble '°• the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the C• "_ Itant a shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Proje 10. Independent ontractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 256 11. Task Orders; Commencement of Services; Schedule of Services. Consultant shall commence Services under a Task Order within five (5) days of receiving a fully executed Task Order from the Commission. Task Orders shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Each Task Order shall identify the funding source(s) to be used to fund the Services under the relevant Task Order, and Consultant shall comply with the requirements specified herein, and in the attached exhibits, applicable to the identified funding source(s). Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with any schedule of Services set forth in a Task Order ("Schedule"). Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commissii':. 's Contract Administrator, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of antic'. > `ed performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 11.1 Modification of the Schedule. Commission, through correspondence or pro required Services within the scheduled time informed of all anticipated delays. In the event tha modification is necessary, Consultant sh for approval by Commission's Contract A 11.2 Trend Me Commission's Contract Ad Commission, on a bi-weekl standard day and time discussions concern issues, and future and distribution o attendees no later tha nsultant ht, I regularly report to the r= sorts, its rogress in providing Commission shall be promptly nsultant determines that a schedule it a revised Schedule of Services tant shall conduct trend meetings with the er interested parties, as requested by the be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a end meetings will encompass focused and informal ule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation ndas to be received by the Commission and other working days prior to the meeting. 11.3 Progr s Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the Schedule of Services. Submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 12. Delay in Performance. 12.1 Excusable Delays. Should Consultant be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of the Agreement by reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. 257 12.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 12.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 12.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 13. Preliminary Review of Work. All reports, work products prepared for submission in the course of providin shall be submitted to the Commission's Contract Ad Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior In the event plans and designs are to be develop plans and designs shall be contingent upon obt required in connection with Federal funding. Administrator, in his or her sole discretion, determ to be not in accordance with the stan•' •f ca Commission's Contract Administrator m work at no cost to the Commission. 14. A Consultant shall render ass Project or necessary to the required to, and will n questions of a leg g papers, and similar work rvices under this Agreement rator in draft form, and the for submission and approval. part o Project, final detailed ironme `` clearance as may be ent that Commission's Contract he formally submitted work product tablished under this Agreement, Itant to revise and resubmit the nd when required by the Commission, earings or other meetings related to the nce of " e Services. However, Consultant shall not be ecision, interpretation or recommendation regarding y be construed as constituting a legal opinion. 15. Opportu to •.:-'re; Inspection of Work. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunit <i 'e, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during .ject implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. Consultant shall allow the Commission's Contract Administrator, Caltrans and FHWA to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 16. Claims Filed by Contractor. 16.1 If claims are filed by the Commission's contractor for the Project ("Contractor") relating to work performed by Consultant's personnel, and additional information or assistance from the Consultant's personnel is required by the Commission in order to evaluate or defend against such claims; Consultant agrees to make reasonable efforts to make its personnel available for consultation with the Commission's construction 258 contract administration and legal staff and for testimony, if necessary, at depositions and at trial or arbitration proceedings. 16.2 Consultant's personnel that the Commission considers essential to assist in defending against Contractor claims will be made available on reasonable notice from the Commission. Consultation or testimony will be reimbursed at the same rates, including travel costs that are being paid for the Consultant's personnel services under this Agreement. 16.3 Services of the Consultant's personnel and other support staff in connection with Contractor claims will be performed pursuant to a written contract amendment, if necessary, extending the termination date of this Agreement in order to finally resolve the claims. 16.4 Nothing contained in this Section shall : construed to in any way limit Consultant's indemnification obligations contained in ion 29. In the case of any conflict between this Section and Section 29, Section sh •overn. This Section is not intended to obligate the Commission to reimb ;. Consu ^.t for time spent by its personnel related to Contractor claims for whic►i ons tant is r ired to indemnify and defend the Commission pursuant to Section •f th greement. 17. Final Acceptance. Upon d -,, minatio the Commission that Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Service -,._• un."ti this Agreement and within the term set forth herein the Commission s sultant a written Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of noti, Consultant shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise ifie• the •tice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may request issuance of a Notic- Fin. - • e when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all Services re• uire• r the - s of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under t ' _ then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and "eed tha . e ed States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty -free non- lusive a irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize othe use e work for governmental purposes. 18. Laws and Re• lations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. For example, and not by way of limitation, a signed Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or published Record of Decision may be required to be approved and/or completed by the United States Department of Transportation. For Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it 259 to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 19. Fees and Payment. 19.1 The method of payment for this Agreement will be based on actual cost plus a fixed fee. Commission shall reimburse Consultant for actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental costs, overhead and other direct costs) incurred by Consultant in performance of the Services. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for actual costs that exceed the estimated was - rates, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental, overhead, and other estimated ' . is set forth in the approved Consultant cost proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "' .and incorporated herein by reference, or any cost proposal included as part of a k • -r ("Cost Proposal") unless additional reimbursement is provided for by wn amend at. The overhead rates included in the attached Exhibit "C" shall be fi ,' or t term o e Master Agreement, and shall not be subject to adjustment, unless it y the applicable funding source. In In no event, shall Consultant be reimbursed fo erhead costs at a rate that exceeds Commission's approved overhead rate •rth in i ;- Cost Proposal. In the event that Commission determines that a change ic_ from that specified in the Cost Proposal, this Agreement or any Task 0 - .'re• 'red, the Agreement time or actual costs reimbursable by Com sh. be adjusted by written amendment to accommodate the changed % k. Tr max urn total cost as specified in Section 19.8 shall not be exceeded, unle . ut► written amendment. 19.2 Consultant a fixed nonadjustable for Scope of Services, a allowable incurred costs, Commission shall pay each Task Order ("Fixed Fee"). The Fixed Fee is der, except in the event of a significant change in the ustment is made by written amendment. 19.3 Reima'rsement for transportation and subsistence costs shall not exceed the rates specified in the approved Cost Proposal. In addition, payments to Consultant for travel and subsistence expenses claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules, unless otherwise authorized by Commission. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, and Commission has not otherwise approved said rates, then Consultant is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to the Commission on demand. 19.4 When milestone cost estimates are included in the approved Cost Proposal for a Task Order, Consultant shall obtain prior written approval for a revised milestone cost estimate from the Contract Administrator before exceeding such cost estimate. 260 19.5 Progress payments shall be made monthly in arrears based on Services provided and allowable incurred costs. A pro rata portion of the Fixed Fee shall be included in the monthly progress payments. If Consultant fails to submit the required deliverable items according to the schedule set forth in the Scope of Services, Commission shall have the right to delay payment or terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Termination. 19.6 No payment shall be made prior to approval of any Services, nor for any Services performed prior to approval of this Agreement. 19.7 Consultant shall be reimbursed, as promptly as fiscal procedures will permit upon receipt by Commission's Contract Administrator of itemized invoices in triplicate. Invoices shall be submitted no later than 45 calendar days after the performance of work for which Consultant is billing. Invoices shall detail e work performed on each milestone and each project as applicable. Invoices shall fo ;_ : ' the format stipulated for the approved Cost Proposal and shall reference this Agree r: umber and project title. Final invoice must contain the final cost and all credit due mmission including any equipment purchased under the Equipment Purc► a provisi• ,. of this Agreement. The final invoice should be submitted within 60 cale . r da after co letion of Consultant's work. Invoices shall be mailed to Commissio o :ct Administrator at the following address: Riverside County Transportation Comm Attention: Accounts Payable P.O. 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 19.8 The shall not exceed the 19.9 salary range identifie Contract Administrator. otal' Gnt payable by Commission, including the Fixed Fee, in each Task Order. ses shall be reimbursable if the new salary is within the roved Cost Proposal and is approved by Commission's sonnel subject to prevailing wage rates as described in the California Labor Code, all .lary increases, which are the direct result of changes in the prevailing wage rates are reimbursable. 19.10 Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 19.11 All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 20. Disputes. 20.1 Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement that is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the Parties shall be 261 decided by a committee consisting of RCTC's Contract Administrator and the Director of Capital Projects, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by Consultant. 20.2 Not later than 30 days after completion of all Services under this Agreement, Consultant may request review by the Commission's Executive Director of unresolved claims or disputes, other than audit. The request for review will be submitted in writing. 20.3 Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the committee will excuse Consultant from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 21. Termination. 21.1 Commission reserves the right to termi (30) calendar days written notice to Consultant, for any termination stated in the notice. Commission may ter at any time, for any or no reason, with the effectiv- .te of the notice of termination of Task Order. e this Agreement upon thirty reason, with the reasons for rvices under a Task Order, to ation to be specified in 21.2 Commission may terminat- ' greement with Consultant should Consultant fail to perform the covenant ,-rein co ned at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such , •n, mission may proceed with the Services in any manner deemed proper r; . ,'.n. If Commission terminates this Agreement with Consultant, Co R ion pay Consultant the sum due to Consultant under this Agreement for Sery s co • lete nd accepted prior to termination, unless the cost of completion to Com ion e - - t funds remaining in the Agreement. In such case, the overage shall be de fro y sum due Consultant under this Agreement and the balance, if a •e 'd to Consultant upon demand. 21. additio • the above, payment upon termination shall include a prorated amount of p if ap• Vf able, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. `:� ,r',^'tant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Contract inistrator to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination 21.4 Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein, and deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 21.5 In addition to the above, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did not meet the standard of care established in this 262 Agreement. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into future agreements with Consultant. 21.6 The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 21.7 Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. 21.8 Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 22. Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements. 22.1 Consultant agrees that the Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., shall be used to determine the cost allowability of individ tems. 22.2 Consultant also agrees to comply with federal procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awls. 22.3 Any costs for which j ym ha been made to CONSULTANT that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallow Ie under 2 CFR, Part 200 and 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., are subject to repayment by Consultant to Commission. 22.4 All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 23. Retention of Records/Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with, as applicable, 2 CFR Part 200, Public Contract Code 10115, et seq. and Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 21, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable and other matters connected with the performance of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code 8546.7; Consultant, subconsultants, and Commission shall maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to, the costs of administering this Agreement. All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the Agreement period and for three years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. The State, State Auditor, Commission, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the State or Federal Government shall have access to any books, records, and documents of Consultant and it's certified public accountants (CPA) work papers that are pertinent to this Agreement and indirect cost rates (ICR) for audit, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested. Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain this provision. 263 23.1 Accounting System. Consultant and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate expenditures by line item for the Services. The accounting system of Consultant and its subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. 24. Audit Review Procedures. 24.1 Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this Agreement that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by Commission's Chief Financial Officer. 24.2 Not later than 30 days after issuanc- of the final audit report, Consultant may request a review by Commission's Chief ancial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review shall be submitte•:,ia riting. 24.3 Neither the pendency of • ispute Commission shall excuse Consultant from full a !mel „perform the terms of this Agreement. 25. Subcontracting. 25.1 Nothing contained contractual relation between Co shall relieve Consultant of its r to be as fully responsible to and of persons either directly omissions of persons subconsultant(s) i payments to the its consideration by e, in accordance with ent or otherwise, shall create any any subconsultant(s), and no subcontract d obligations hereunder. Consultant agrees acts and omissions of its subconsultant(s) ec y = ` ployed by any of them as it is for the acts and yed by Consultant. Consultant's obligation to pay its bligation from Commission's obligation to make 25.2 Co I shall perform the Services contemplated with resources available within its own ` 'anization and no portion of the Services pertinent to this Agreement shall be subcontracted without written authorization by Commission's Contract Administrator, except that, which is expressly identified in the approved Cost Proposal. 25.3 Consultant shall pay its subconsultants within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of each payment made to Consultant by Commission. 25.4 Any subcontract in excess of $25,000 entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this Agreement to be applicable to subconsultants. 25.5 Any substitution of subconsultant(s) must be approved in writing by Commission's Contract Administrator prior to the start of work by the subconsultant(s). 264 25.6 Exhibit "C" may set forth the rates at which each subconsultant shall bill the Consultant for Services and that are subject to reimbursement by the Commission to Consultant. Additional Direct Costs, as defined in Exhibit "C" shall be the same for both the Consultant and all subconsultants, unless otherwise identified in Exhibit "C" or in a Task Order. The subconsultant rate schedules and cost proposals contained herein are for accounting purposes only. 26. Equipment Purchase 26.1 Prior authorization, in writing, by Commission's Contract Administrator shall be required before Consultant enters into any unbudgeted purchase order, or subcontract for supplies, equipment, or services. Consultant shall provide an evaluation of the necessity or desirability of incurring such costs. 26.2 For purchase of any item, service or ► suiting work not covered in the Cost Proposal and exceeding $5,000 prior authoriz in writing, by Commission's Contract Administrator is required. Three competitive;; o`. •ns must be submitted with the request for such purchase, or the absence of ;L ding mu «e adequately justified. 26.3 Any equipment purchase a r- - It of this Agreement is subject to the following: Consultant shall maintain an in y of all nonexpendable property. Nonexpendable property is defined as ��ti'ng a u I life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more. If the -_• e• ment needs replacement and is sold or traded in, Commission shall recei a f -fund or credit at the conclusion of this Agreement, or if this Agr- i t is , i. ,.: mated, Consultant may either keep the equipment and credit Commi . • n in am' t equal to its fair market value, or sell such equipment at the best pric. •tai : ublic or private sale, in accordance with established Commission •roc. =s; an• ' redit Commission in an amount equal to the sales price. If Cons -c • keep the equipment, fair market value shall be determined at Con ant's a s- n the basis of a competent independent appraisal of such equipment. sisals s I be obtained from an appraiser mutually agreeable to by Commission and Co tant.: Consultant determines to sell the equipment, the terms and conditions of such st be approved in advance by Commission. 2 CFR, Part 200 requires a credit to F`-'eral funds when participating equipment with a fair market value greater than $5,000 is credited to the Project. 26.4 All subcontracts in excess $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 27. Labor Code Requirements. 27.1 Prevailing Wages. (a) Consultant shall comply with the State of California's General Prevailing Wage Rate requirements in accordance with California Labor Code, Section 1770, and all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services. (b) Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement, if for more than $25,000 for public works construction or more than $15,000 for the alteration, 265 demolition, repair, or maintenance of public works, shall contain all of the provisions of this Section. (c) When prevailing wages apply to the Services described in the Scope of Services, transportation and subsistence costs shall be reimbursed at the minimum rates set by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) as outlined in the applicable Prevailing Wage Determination. See http://www.dir.ca.gov. (d) Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at commencement of this Agreement are on file at the Commission's offices. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any clai abilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to _;;?iii, flay with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 27.2 DIR Registration. Since th- :ervic-s are b • performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenan <' •ro' ", then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant an ; subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relati• Cons u t shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the sa - • u • r nsultants. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring an t by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consul ole ponsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compli, � irem: s. 27.3 Eight -Ho . Pur- ant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of ?,..II ±stitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker emplo I be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, : •forty h. ! s in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours p "Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -H. d r Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 27.4 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or 266 trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies ith Consultant 28. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 28.1 Documents & Data. This perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, copyrights and designs embodied in plans, s materials, data and other documents or works of a expression, including but not limited to, p al dra recorded on computer diskettes, whic Consultant under this Agreement ("Docu Consulta Commission is granted an e subcontractor prepares under to grant the exclus makes no such repre prepared by design pro Commission. ement ';,.-ates an exclusive and ify, reuse, o b -license any and all s, studies, drawings, estimates, hip fixed in any tangible medium of s or data magnetically or otherwise or caused to be prepared by II subcontractors to agree in writing that ual license for any Documents & Data the ep . -nts and warrants that Consultant has the legal right ual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant d warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were s other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 28.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this 267 Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the ove-referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Co ission. All materials and documents whi Consultant for general use prior to the execution copyright of any other party or publicly available continue to be the property of the Consultant. stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consu the right to grant the exclusive and per Lens provided herein. Commissi perpetual license to copy, otherwise owned by Consu collective, insurrectiona 28 procedures, drawiri information, and other connection with the pe Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. ere eloped or prepared by the Agree t and which are not the ther co ter applications, shall unless otherwise identified and represents and warrants that it has all such Intellectual Property as anted by Consultant a non-exclusive and -license any and all Intellectual Property e basis or foundation for any derivative, ental work created under this Agreement. �onfideni�ity. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, ns, computer program data, input record data, written is and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in ance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by 28.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any 268 other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 29. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of Commission's choosing), indemnify and hold Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related cos ; and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, ._; ;. and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that m. •rought or instituted against Commission, Caltrans and their directors, official office ;; employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and sa " any judg` ; : : t, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission, Caltr or eir dire rs, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteer such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commissi altrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents • r volu rs, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney rr by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the in• nity p • ided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricte• ran• •roceeds, if any, received by Commission, Caltrans, their directors, offic offs s, em ;';•yees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. If Consultant's ob •.tio efend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant's perfor - - "• • n professional" (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 278 :, then, a on , o the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorp ed herei Consultant's indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out • •ert- to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Cons , and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdic'ion, Consultant's liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault. Consultant's obligations as set forth in this Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 30. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, inverse condemnation, and any claims related to property acquisition and relocation rules or failure to detect or abate hazardous materials, which are brought by a third party, and which , in any manner arise out of or are incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, 269 employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, Caltrans, and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission, Caltrans or their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall no •e restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, Caltrans or r directors, officials officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Notwith ' • the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Sect'* 78 he above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Se': '•n 2782.8, laims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessn , or ul misco duct of the Consultant. Consultant's obligations as set forth in this -c 29 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 31. Insurance. 31.1 Time for C Agreement until it has prov secured all insurance requir acceptable to the Com commence work on Section. nsultant shall not commence work under this tisfactory to the Commission that it has on, in a form and with insurance companies ddition, onsultant shall not allow any subcontractor to until it has secured all insurance required under this 31.2 m um " .-. uirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration .;Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property wh h may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (a) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 270 (b) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 31.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a per:.+d of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability urance appropriate to their profession. For Consultant, such insurance shall an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be en red `i clude contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be writte a policy z``;: coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or ssio of the '' onsultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in th of must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy mus on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insu t to nd. Subconsultants of Consultant shall obtain such insurance in an s than $2,000,000 per claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, th dispense with the errors and Section for certain subcons the nature and scope of the such request shall be i omm .. may onsider written requests to lower or s lia `'''ity insurance requirement contained in this onsu t, on a case -by -case basis, depending on rovided by the subconsultant. Approval of ned by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 31.4 ircraft L ility surance. Prior to conducting any Services requiring use of aircraft, Co maintained, aircraft li required by the Commis non -owned aircraft and p.ssengers, and shall name, or be endorsed to name, the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and rance or equivalent form, with a single limit as shall be uch insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and 31.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (a) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate 271 limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's or Caltrans' insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least road as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (b) Automobile Liability. T autom liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, Calt ` `s and their di tors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered a •diti'III 41 insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading oading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or fo a ich the sultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insu : esp :' s the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employe y y ts, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage exc the sultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insur. - m. taint by the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, •loy- - • .•ents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be cal . •on to ntribute with it in any way. mpensation and Employers Liability Coverage. Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the • r- . Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers pensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. set forth hereunder. (d) All Coverages. (i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits 272 (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a ovision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis fo `'e benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before t .. mission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a . ed i ed. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" ba with cove a at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant sha :.vide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancel of an •licy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provid: en 0) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to no • . e •f premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expire . u ;• the rm of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) i ding = e Ge` al Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least (1 or to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. later than the effect continuously for a peri Agreement. Consultant retroactive date is advance past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage st three years after the completion of the work under this urchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly 273 reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 31.6 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self - insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees a agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losse : o related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expense. 31.7 Acceptability of Insurers. I ranc- is to be ced with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VI I , H en :. to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 31.8 Verification of Cov- su t shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and en• s- ffecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactor Co fission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy sh. •e sip ed b person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All ica - .•rsements must be received and approved by the Commission before omme es. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, ce •fie all required insurance policies, at any time. 31.9 . ubconsu nt Insurance Re• uirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors . bcon Itants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided eviden . actory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under s Section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 31.10 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly impact the Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant's insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 274 32. Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the VeP,'cle Code, the Commission has determined that the Project will contain areas that are •_4: to public traffic. Consultant shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divi-1 c z.11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. Consultant shall take all reasons ary precautions for safe operation of its vehicles and the protection of the eling pub om injury and damage from such vehicles. 33. Additional Work. Any work or active that are in addition to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be perfor rsua • this Agreement shall only be performed pursuant to a separate agree n e parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission's Exec ive make a change to the Agreement, other than a Cardinal Change. -" pos: ;of this Agreement, a Cardinal Change is a change which is "outside the 6 r-ement; in other words, work which should not be regarded as having . asonably within the contemplation of the parties when the Agree...-.» w. -ntered into. An example of a change which is not a Cardinal Change wo •e re, a contract to construct a building there are many changes in the ma gals used l«, t t size and layout of the building remains the same. Cardinal Changes of wit i the authority of this provision to order, and shall be processed by the Com io "sole source" procurements according to applicable law, including the requiremen ,;-- TA Circular 4220.1D, paragraph 9(f). (a) In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the Commission's Executive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agreement ("Bilateral Contract Modification"). (b) Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change, without written authorization from the Commission's Executive Director as set forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued and signed by the Commission's Executive Director, Consultant shall not provide such change. 275 34. Prohibited Interests. 34.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 34.2 Consultant Conflict of Interest (a) Consultant shall disclose any relationship with Commission that may have an im Agreement, or any ensuing Commission constructio current clients who may have a financial interest in ensuing Commission construction project, whic ancial, business, or other upon the outcome of this Consultant shall also list this Agreement, or any (b) Consultant hereby ce at it does not now have, nor shall it acquire any financial or business inter ) at w• . conflict with the performance of services under this Agreement. (c) Any s this Agreement, shall contain (d) affiliated with Consulta construction inspect firm is one, which i otherwise. xcess of $25,000 entered into as a result of ns of this Article. C. `T' - certifies that neither Consultant, nor any firm ny construction contract, or on any contract to provide tion project resulting from this contract. An affiliated control of the same persons through joint -ownership, or (e) cept for subconsultants whose services are limited to providing surveying or materials testing information, no subconsultant who has provided design services in connection with this contract shall be eligible to bid on any construction contract, or on any contract to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this contract. 34.3 Commission Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 34.4 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular 276 working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 34.5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. As required in connection with federal funding, the Consultant warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without li. •ility pursuant to the terms herein, or at its discretion to deduct from the Agree price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commi• percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 34.6 Rebates, Kickbacks or 0 warrants that this Agreement was not obtaine other unlawful consideration, either promised or breach or violation of this warranty, Co terminate this Agreement without liabilit performed; or to deduct from the A• reem e, such rebate, kickback or other 34.7 Coven Funds for Lobbying. The Con belief no state, feder by or on behalf of t to influence an offi Legislature or Unite Congress; or any emplo a Member of the Legislature or Congress, in connection with the award of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. wful Co deration. Consultant ed through rebates kickbacks or to any Commission employee. For have the right in its discretion; to r the value of the work actually therwise recover the full amount of diture of Commission, State or Federal nt certi les that to the best of his/ her knowledge and y appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid person for the purpose of influencing or attempting e of any state or federal agency; a Member of the State ongress; an officer or employee of the Legislature or (a) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency; a Member of Congress; an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress; in connection with this Agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit the attached Exhibit "G", Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with the attached instructions. (b) The Consultant's certification provided in this Section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was 277 entered into, and is a prerequisite for entering into this Agreement pursuant to Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code. Failure to comply with the restrictions on expenditures, or the disclosure and certification requirements set forth in Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. (c) The Consultant also agrees by signing this Agreement that he/she shall require that the language set forth in this Section 3.23.5 be included in all Consultant subcontracts which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. 34.8 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal . r administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreeme 35. Equal Opportunity Employment. Cons opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate applicant for employment because of race, religi• 1 , co age. Such non-discrimination shall include, b initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfe layoff or termination. 36. Ri• ht to Em lo Other Cons other consultants in connection nt esents that it is an equal st any ontractor, employee or lo , nation. rigin, ancestry, sex or imited to, all activities related to uitment or recruitment advertising, ission reserves the right to employ 37. Governing Law. ", gree t shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of C e shall be in Riverside County. 38. Disp Attorne :>:' Fees. 38.1 Pr , o -' mencing any action hereunder, the Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve a .ispute arising between them. The pendency of a dispute shall not excuse Consultant from full and timely performance of the Services. 38.2. If the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute after attempting in good faith to do so, the Parties may seek any other available remedy to resolve the dispute. If either Party commences an action against the other Party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 39. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 278 40. Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 41. Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: Psomas 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 400 Riverside, CA 92507 Attn: Sean Smith COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor River ''de, CA 92501 Att xecutive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally d lever : r +r when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class tage pre '•, and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice sh. +e deemed ad ate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the meth• •f s- ice. 42. Conflicting Provisions. In conflict in any way with the provisions set conditions contained in this Agreement s Parties and the interpretation of ties' the Services. ovisions of any attached exhibits ement, the language, terms and n `' he actions and obligations of the derstanding concerning the performance of 43. Amendment or IVI action. 1Qo supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall • • s executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 44. Entire Parties relating to th agreements or understa This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the atter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, 45. Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 46. Provisions Applicable When State Funds or Federal Funds Are Involved. When funding for the Services under a Task Order is provided by this Agreement are provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the provisions included in Exhibit "D" (Federal Department of Transportation Requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DBE program requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. When funding for the Services under a Task Order is provided, in whole or in part, from the FTA, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the 279 provisions included in Exhibit "F" (FTA Requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference 47. Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 48. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 49. Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compe sation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, .. c agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the i ° 'ces. 50. Counterparts. This Agreement may b- gned in . nterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 51. Attorney Client Privilege. The Pa ognize that, during the Project, the Commission and its attorneys will engag ; comm► ation that gives rise to an attorney client privilege of confidentiality ("Confid m ation"). Given the nature of the work done by Consultant for the Commis e necessary for the Consultant to participate in Confidential Comm ions. `'i the extent that (i) the Consultant is a party to any Confidential Commu tion and a third party seeks discovery of such communications, then the C ; ulta ! - seemed to be an agent of the Commission solely for purposes of presery a o y client privilege in the relevant Confidential Communication. Any or client privilege shall be held by the Commission and the Consultant is give that privilege or, otherwise, disclose such Confidential Comm ► r;' ation ex•; _.•t as set forth below. This Section is intended to maintain the privilege in any . o,,'lege• ;' onfidential Communications that are (1) between and among Commission, Co =4 , and Commission's attorneys; (2) between Consultant (on behalf of the Commission) d Commission's attorneys; (3) Confidential Communications that occur in Closed Session meetings wherein the Commission, the Commission's attorneys and Consultant are present; and (4) between Commission and Consultant wherein the substance of the Confidential Communication is conveyed to/from the Consultant. Consultant may disclose a Confidential Communication to the extent such disclosure is required by legal process, by a court of competent jurisdiction or by any other governmental authority, provided that any such disclosure shall be limited to the specific part of the Confidential Communication required to be disclosed and provided that Consultant first comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph. As soon as practicable after Consultant becomes aware that it is required, or may become required, to disclose the Confidential Communication for such reason, Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing, in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed 280 to limit the Confidential Communication required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the disclosed information following its disclosure. Consultant shall cooperate with the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, to assist the Commission in limiting the scope of disclosure or assuring the confidential treatment of any disclosed information. 52. Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 53. Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 54. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 55. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 56. No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. [Signatures on following page] 281 SIGNATURE PAGE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSITION 1B, FTA AND FHWA FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Anne Mayer Approved as to Form: By: Best, Best & Krieger General Counsel PSOMAS By: Si ture e '11?°1- Title ATTEST: By: Its: * A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 282 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services The Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) have procured one or more Consultants (Consultant or Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services Consultant) to provide Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services on an On- Call/as needed basis in support of current Commission and RCA Projects, Measure A Projects, and projects done in partnership with other agencies, pursuant to Task Orders issued in the sole discretion of the Commission and/or the.RCA. Task Orders shall be awarded through an additional qy ation-based selection process. Such Right of Way Engineering and Survey, limited to, the following work programs, an below: ices maAinclude, but are not with applicable requirements 1. Consultant shall provide right of , eery and survey services including but not limited to: preparin• Bou - - Monumentation Maps, Survey Control Maps, Records ine Adjustments, Subdivision Maps, Legal Descriptions and Pla - a•s, praisal Maps, Certificates of Compliance, staking/marking of pa • - of way for appraisal and utility potholing purposes, and • •ht . ay engineering as necessary. 2. Consultant showing all par monuments used oundary, Monumentation, and Survey Control Maps sement boundaries and their relationship to the land net ine them. In cases where the Commission is working in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), these maps shall conform to the Caltrans District 8 Right of Way Engineering Quality Assurance Plan for the Preparation of Documents and Maps. 3. Consultant shall utilize appropriate land surveying and land title practices to: • Establish all property and easement boundaries within and overlapping the project area • Perform site reconnaissance and monument recovery • Establish or reestablish all monumentation required by state law and local regulations Exhibit A 283 • File a Record of Survey, if necessary, to comply with the Land Surveyors Act. The preparation, filing, and associated fees will be the responsibility of Consultant. All data, maps, and documents produced by Consultant shall be subject to approval and acceptance by the Commission's or the RCA's Project Manager, and in certain cases, Caltrans. In the event of non -acceptance due to errors or omissions, Consultant shall have seven calendar days to make corrections and return maps and documents to the Commission and/or the RCA. Final acceptance will occur only after the work product has been determined to conform to the scope of work and requirements. 4. All surveying and mapping work affecting the State of California Right of Way at any location, or along any route, shall be in accordance with state law and local regulation, and the procedures and instructions cont ed in the Caltrans Right of Way Manual, the Caltrans Surveys Manual (Ma ; .'`s), and the Caltrans District 8 Right of Way Engineering Quality Assura for the Preparation of Documents and Maps. All right of way ac• ed by th ommission on for state highway system projects will be subject cce•ance an ransfer to the State. 5. Consultant shall appoint a Survey Manag ho is a licensed Land Surveyor or Licensed Civil Engineer, author' • pra land surveying by the State of California. The Survey Manager 141110•. •o ible for all work performed by Consultant for the Commission or t A. 6. Deliverables shall typi► y co st of • (1) electronic copy. 7. If any legal issu request legal legal opinio ring the course of an assignment, Consultant shall mmission's or RCA's legal counsel shall render all 8. Consultant sha till the services of Commission's and/or RCA's on -call consultants supple al work required for the effective delivery of Consultant's services to the Commission or the RCA. Fees charged by Commission's or RCA's on -call consultants shall be paid directly by the Commission or the RCA. Any and all work submitted by the Consultant shall be reviewed by the Consultant LS/LCE and be complete and final in strict accordance with the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Rule 476, Subsection (e), and signed and sealed in accordance with Section 8761 of the Professional Land Surveyors Act. As it pertains to projects affecting the State Highway System, work shall not be considered complete until Caltrans has approved the work for inclusion into the Right of Way Engineering files. Caltrans does not assume responsibility for the Consultant work after inclusion into the R/W Engineering files, Consultant shall retain responsibility for all work performed and submitted. Exhibit A 284 Lot Line Adjustments, Parcel Maps, Surveys and Legal Descriptions work required under this Scope of Work may include field surveying, legal description, map preparation and the marking of properties for utility potholing, appraisal, and boundary determination purposes or other right of way engineering required for transportation purposes. Surveys prepared in connection with Caltrans projects shall be performed in accordance with the current Manuals. Work not covered by the Manuals or not associated with Caltrans projects shall be performed in accordance with accepted professional surveying standards. Survey points, lines, and monuments shall be established, marked, identified, and referenced. If required, Records of Survey shall be prepared and filed in accordance with Chapter 15 (Land Surveyors Act) of the Business and Professions Code. A copy of original survey documents resulting from contract work, which may include field notes, adjustment calculations, final results, and intermediate documents, may be required to be delivered and will become the property of Commission off„ CA. Exhibit A 285 EXHIBIT "B" SAMPLE TASK ORDER FORM Task Order No. Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above: List funding sources: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $ . .00 Completion Date: , 202V The undersigned consultant hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in ac dance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: Dated: By: By: Exhibit B-1 286 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION Exhibit C-1 287 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION SUMMARY FIRM PROJECT TASKS/ROLE COST Prime Consultant: Psomas Engineering & Surveying $ 750,000.00 Sub Consultants: CL Surveying & Mapping, Inc. Land Surveying Support Services TBD 4140°' Aff-TUAL CO $ 750,000.00 1 Commission authorization pertains to total contract award amou however, the maximum total compensation authorized may not be Weeded. Compensation adjustments between consultants may occur; 288 EXHIBIT "0" FHWA/ CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS 1. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE. A. Consultant's signature affixed herein shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that CONSULTANT has, unless exempt, complied with, the nondiscrimination program requirements of Government Code Section 12990 and Title 2, California Administrative Code, Section 8103. B. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant and its subconsultants shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against a •y employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religio eed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, m condition (e.g., cancer), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care I - . - Co °a.;_ Itant and subconsultants shall insure that the evaluation and treatment 1 eir emp • .-es and applicants for employment are free from such discrimin `n a harass ent. Consultant and subconsultants shall comply with the provisions air Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12990 (a -f) et seq.) and the applicab _' gulations promulgated there under (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, 728 seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Com - - enting Government Code Section 12990 (a -f), set forth in Chapter of Di 4 • Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporated i gre iii ent by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Consults nd i subc• foiir. ultants shall give written notice of their obligations under this claus izations with which they have a collective bargaining or other Agr C. If this Agre relative to Title VI (n Transportation — Title 4 the 1964 Civil Rights Act implement and maintain a policy of nondiscrimination in which no person in the state of California shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or subject to discrimination under any program or activity by the recipients of federal assistance or their assignees and successors in interest. Ily nded, the Consultant shall comply with regulations ion in federally -assisted programs of the Department of Federal Regulations, Part 21 - Effectuation of Title VI of e VI provides that the recipients of federal assistance will D. If this Agreement is federally funded, the Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement shall act in accordance with Title VI. Specifically, the Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability in the selection and retention of Subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the U.S. DOT's Regulations, Exhibit D-1 289 including employment practices when the Agreement covers a program whose goal is employment. 2. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION CONSULTANT's signature affixed herein, shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that CONSULTANT has complied with Title 2 CFR, Part 180, "OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government wide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement)", which certifies that he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager, is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any federal agency; has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded, or determined ineligible by any federal agency within the past three (3) years; does not have a proposed debarment pending; and has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past three (3) years. Any exceptions to this certification must be disclosed to COMMISSION. B. Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of recommendation for award, but will be considered in determining CONSULTANT responsibility. Disclosures must indicate to whom exceptions apply, initiating agency, and dates of action. C. Exceptions to the Federal Government Excluded Parties List System maintained by the General Services Administratio re to be determined by the Federal highway Administration. 3. DISCRIMINATION The Commission shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the implementation of the Caltrans DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Commission shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Consultant or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, of sex in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant or subcontractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 and the Caltrans DBE program in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts, as further set forth below. Failure by the Consultant or subcontractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy, as the Commission deems appropriate. 4. PROMPT PAYMENT Consultant agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the Exhibit D-2 290 prime contractor receives from the Commission. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the Commission. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 5. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE No retainage will be withheld by the Agency from progress payments due the prime consultant. Retainage by the prime consultant or subconsultants is prohibited, and no retainage will be held by the prime consultant from progress due subconsultants. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating prime consultant or subconsultants to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, other:;,.ise available to the prime consultant or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involv by the prime consultant or deficient subconsultant pe subconsultant. This provision applies to both DBE subconsultants. 6. LEGAL REMEDIES In addition to those contract remedies se either Party to this Agreement may, wher this Agreement pursuant to the r- nt p relevant federal or state statut relevant federal and state pr well as any and all other app The Consultant shal subcontractors. 7. DBE PARTICIP ate payment or nonpayment ce, or noncompliance by a none' -'E prime consultants and vant provisions of California law, ek legal redress for violations of ons . 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26, to the overning civil rights violations, and to the false claims or "whistleblower" actions, as d state provisions of law. on to this effect in each of its agreements with its Caltrans has developed a statewide DBE program pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 26. The requirements and procedures, as applicable, of the Caltrans DBE program are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Even if no DBE participation will be reported, Consultant shall complete Exhibits "E" of this Agreement in compliance with the Caltrans DBE program, a final utilization report in the form provided by the Commission, and any other Caltrans required DBE forms. A. This Agreement is subject to Title 49, Part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations entitled "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs." By obtaining DBE participation on this Agreement, Consultant will assist Caltrans in meeting its federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. Exhibit D-3 291 B. This Agreement does not have a DBE goal, but DBE goals may be included with each task order request for proposals. If a DBE subconsultant is unable to perform, the Consultant must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another DBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met. A DBE is a firm meeting the definition of a DBE as specified in 49 CFR. C. DBE and other small businesses (SB), as defined in Title 49 CFR, Part 26 are encouraged to participate in the performance of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds. The Consultant, subrecipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of US DOT- assisted agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy as the Commission, Caltrans or the Department of Transportation deems appropriate. D. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all of the provisions of this section. E. A DBE may be terminated only with prior written approval from the Commission and only for the reasons specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). Prior to requesting Commission consent for the termination, the prime consultant must meet the procedural requirements specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). 8. DBE PARTICIPATION GENERAL INFORMATION It is Consultant's responsibility to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26, and the Caltrans DBE program. Particular attention is directed to the following: A. A DBE must be a small business firm defined pursuant to 13 CFR 121 and be certified through the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP). B. A certified DBE may participate as a prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner, as a vendor of material or supplies, or as a trucking company. C. A DBE joint -venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work or clearly defined portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing and supervising the work with its own forces. The DBE joint venture partner must share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits of the joint -venture commensurate with its ownership interest. D. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function, pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55 that is, must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing and supervising the work, as more fully described in section 8 below. Exhibit D-4 292 E. The Consultant shall list only one subcontractor for each portion of work as defined in the Consultant's bid/proposal and all DBE subcontractors should be listed in the Consultant's bid/cost proposal list of subcontractors. F. A Consultant who is a certified DBE is eligible to claim all of the work in the Agreement toward the DBE participation except that portion of the work to be performed by non -DBE subcontractors. 9 . COMMERCIALLY USEFUL FUNCTION A. A DBE performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for execution of the work of the Agreement and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a commercially useful function, the DBE must also be responsible with respect to materi.,:: and supplies used on the Agreement, for negotiating price, determining quality and:: antity, ordering the material, and installing (where applicable) and paying for the mat, ;,, elf. To determine whether a DBE is performing a commercially useful functi � eva ; e the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices; whether the aR nt the fir to be paid under the Agreement is commensurate with the work it ctua perform g, and other relevant factors. B. A DBE does not perform a comm an extra participant in a transaction, Agre in order to obtain the appearance • I BE such an extra participant, exam! ' r tra not participate. C. If a DBE does no total cost of its Agre portion of the wor industry practice for commercially useful fu ction if its role is limited to that of e t through which funds are passed pati• In determining whether a DBE is actions, particularly those in which DBEs do exercise responsibility for at least thirty percent of the n work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater me than would be expected on the basis of normal rk involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a 10. DBE CERTIFICATION AND DE -CERTIFICATION STATUS If a DBE subcontractor is decertified during the life of the Agreement, the decertified subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of de -certification. If a subcontractor becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Agreement, the subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to the Commission's Contract Administrator within 30 days. 11. DBE RECORDS A. The Contractor shall maintain records of materials purchased and/or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each Exhibit D-5 293 DBE or vendor, regardless of tier. The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE prime Contractors shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work. B. Upon completion of the Agreement, a summary of these records shall be prepared and submitted on the most current version of the form entitled, "Final Report -Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)," GEM- 2402F (Exhibit 17-F in Chapter 17 of the LAPM), certified correct by the Contractor or the Contractor's authorized representative and shall be furnished to the Commission's Contract Administrator with the final invoice. Failure to provide the summary of DBE payments with the final invoice will result in twenty- five percent (25%) of the dollar value of the invoice being withheld from payment until the form is submitted. The amount will be returned to the Contractor when a satisfactory "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)" is submitted to the Commission's Contract Administrator. a. Prior to the fifteenth of each month, the Contracto Commission's Contract Administrator showing companies. The Contractor shall also obtai Commission's Contract Administrator showing t to all firms, including owner -operators, for the I from a non -DBE, the Contractor may count only the a result of the lease arrangement. b. The Contractor shall also documentation showing the tru number, and if applicable, t used during that month. This DBE Trucking Verific Commission's Contr 12. REPORTING When Reporting DBE Pa as follows: submit documentation to the am. ;ii . paid to DBE trucking subm •ocumentation to the paid by I' E trucking companies trucks. If the DBE leases trucks or commission the DBE receives as bmit ` Y e C•' mission's Contract Administrator er, e of owner, California Highway Patrol CA ifica number of the truck owner for all trucks hall be submitted on the Caltrans "Monthly -2404(F) form provided to the Contractor by the OR SUPPLIES PURCHASED FROM DBEs tion, Material or Supplies purchased from DBEs may count A. If the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer, 100 % of the cost of the materials or supplies will count toward the DBE participation. A DBE manufacturer is a firm that operates or maintains a factory or establishment that produces on the premises, the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the Agreement and of the general character described by the specifications. B. If the materials or supplies purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 % of the cost of the materials or supplies toward DBE goals. A DBE regular dealer is a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the Agreement, are bought, kept in stock, and regularly Exhibit D-6 294 sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a DBE regular dealer, the firm must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a DBE regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone or asphalt without owning, operating or maintaining a place of business provided in this section. C. If the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products, any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment, shall be by a long-term lease agreement and not an ad hoc or Agreement -by -Agreement basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not DBE regular dealers within the meaning of this section. D. Materials or supplies purchased from a DBE, which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, will be limited to the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on the job site, provided the fees are reasonable and not excessive as compared vy fees charged for similar services. 13. REPORTING PARTICIPATION OF DB2%EtIJ/KING COMPANIES When Reporting DBE Participation, Parti of D'rucking companies may count as follows: A. The DBE must be responsible for the management and supervision of the entire trucking operation for which it is responsible. B. The DBE must itself own and operate at least one fully licensed, insure, and operational truck used on the Agreement. C. The DBE receives credit r the total value of the transportation services it provides on the Agreement using ic owns, insures, and operates using drivers it employs. D. The DBE may lease trucks from another DBE firm including an owner -operator who is certified as a DBE. The DBE who leases trucks from another DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services the lessee DBE provides on the Agreement. E. The DBE may also lease trucks from a non -DBE firm, including an owner -operator. The DBE who leases trucks from a non -DBE is entitled to credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. The DBE does not receive credit for the total value of the transportation services provided by the lessee, since these services are not provided by the DBE. F. For the purposes of this section, a lease must indicate that the DBE has exclusive use and control over the truck. This does not preclude the leased truck from working for others during the term of the lease with the consent of the DBE, as long as the lease gives Exhibit D-7 295 the DBE absolute priority for use of the leased truck. Leased trucks must display the name and identification number of the DBE. 14. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION In accordance with 49 CFR Part 29, which by this reference is incorporated herein, Consultant's subconsultants completed and submitted the Certificate of subconsultant Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion as part of the Consultant's proposal. If it is later determined that Consultant's subconsultants knowingly rendered an erroneous Certificate, the Commission may, among other remedies, terminate this Agreement. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE A. Compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). (Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of $100,000). B. Mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan iss - compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Sta 16. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10296, and by signing this Agreement, Consultant certifies under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against Consultant within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of Consultant's failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders Consultant to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Exhibit D-8 296 EXHIBIT "E" CONSULTANT DBE COMMITMENT Exhibit E-1 297 B RE • UIRED FORMS Psomas 1 Exhibit 10-01 Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-01 Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment EXHIBIT 10-01 CONSULTANT PROPOSAL DBE COMMITMENT 1. Local Agency: Riverside County Transportation Commission 2. Contract DBE Goal: 12% 3. Project Description: On -Call Right -of -Way Engineering and Surveying Services 4. Project Location: Riverside County 5. Consultant's Name: Psomas 6. Prime Certified DBE: 0 7. Description of Work, Service, or Materials Supplied 8. DBE Certification Number 9. DBE Contact Information 10. DBE % Land Surveying Support Services 38284 CL Surveying Mapping, Inc. 1 Lam Le, PLS 400 East Ri t., Ste. 202, Corona, CA 92879 90 42001 Lam@cl-survey.com 12% <( Local Agency to Complete this' ection TOTAL CLAIMED DBE PARTICIPATION IMPORTANT: Identify all DBE firms being claimed for regardless of tier. Written confirmation of each listed requir • c -= — 4/21/2022 12 credit, DBE is 17. Local Agency Contract Number: n11 11. 18. Federal -Aid Project Nu 19. Proposed Contract Executi te: 20. Consultant's Ranking after Eval Local Agency certifies that all DBE certifi s are valid and information on this form is complete and accurate. 21. Local Agency Representative's Signature 22. Date 12. Preparer's Signature 13. Date Sean Smith, PLS 909.800.8911 23. Local Agency Representative's Name 24. Phone 14. Preparer's Name 15. Phone Vice President 25. Local Agency Representative's Title 16. Preparer's Title DISTRIBUTION: Original — Included with consultant's proposal to local agency. ADA Notice: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654- 3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS -89, Sacramento, CA 95814. LPP 18-01 Page 1 of 2 January 2019 PSOMAS Riverside County Transportation Commission RFQ No. 22-31-057-00 1 On -Call Right -of -Way Engineering Services B.49 EXHIBIT "F" - FTA PROVISIONS FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, including the other Exhibits attached thereto, the following provisions shall apply if funding for the Services is provided, in whole or in part, from the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA"). In addition, the exhibits attached to this Agreement, may be replaced and substituted with similar forms required by FTA. Consultant agrees to complete any such substitute forms. 1. NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS TO THIRD -PARTIES BY USE OF A DISCLAIMER (1) The Commission and Consultant notwithstanding any concurrence by the Feder solicitation or award of the underlying contr by the Federal Government ("Governme to this contract and shall not be subje Commission, Consultant, or any o • -r party pertaining to any matter resulting (2) The Consultant a• to i financed in whole or in .'rt w Fed agreed that the claus who will be subje 2. PRO AND RELATED A (1) The Consult Remedies Act of 1 as amended, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801 et seq. and U.S. DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies," 49 C.F.R. Part 31, apply to its actions pertaining to this Project. Upon execution of the underlying contract, the Consultant certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, it may make, or causes to be made, pertaining to the underlying contract or the FTA assisted project for which this contract work is being performed. In addition to other penalties that may be applicable, the Consultant further acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification, the Federal Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 on the Consultant to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. sions. A : '. FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS ledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil a wledge and agree that, ment in or approval of the absent -xpress written consent deral G. ernment is not a party y obligations or liabilities to the ether or not a party to that contract) ing contract. e the above clause in each subcontract I assistance provided by FTA. It is further ified, except to identify the subconsultant 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MASTER AGREEMENT For Federal Transit Administration Agreements authorized by 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, Title 23, U.S.C. (Highways), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969, as amended, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, 23 U.S.C. § 101 note, or other Federal enabling legislation; FTA MA(14); October 1, 2007; [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/14-Master.pdf]. 299 (2) The Consultant also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, certification, assurance, or representation to the Federal Government under a contract connected with a project that is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance originally awarded by FTA under the authority of 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 or any other Federal law, the Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5323(1) on the Consultant, to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. (3) The Consultant agrees to include the above two clauses in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clauses shall not be modified, except identify the subconsultant who will be subject to the provisions. 3. ACCESS TO RECORDS (1) The Consultant agrees to provide U.S. Secretary of Transportation, the Co any of their authorized representati and other data of the Consultant required by 49 U.S.C. § 5325(g). ssion, th TA Administrator, the r General of the United States or all Project work, materials, payrolls, tly pertinent to this contract as (2) The Consultant .r -es perm : ny of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoev s and transcriptions as reasonably needed. (3) The Co _• r= .: to maintain all books, records, accounts and reports required un. is con t fo period of not less than three years after the date of transmission : ' he final xpenditure report, except in the event of litigation or settlement of cl. a ' g from the performance of this contract, in which case Consultant agrees aintain same until the Commission, the FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General, or any of their duly authorized representatives, have disposed of all such litigation, appeals, claims or exceptions related thereto. Reference 49 CFR 18.39(i)(11). (4) The Consultant agrees to require its subcontractors and third party contractors to provide the same. 4. FEDERAL CHANGES Consultant shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA regulations, policies, procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed directly or by reference in the Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement between the Commission and the Federal Government 300 ("Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement"), as they may be amended or promulgated from time to time during the term of this contract. Consultant's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this contract. 5. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS (1) Nondiscrimination - In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., U.S. DOT regulations, "Nondiscrimination in Federally -Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation — Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act," 49 C.F.R. Part 21, FTA Circular 4702.1 A, "Title VI and Title VI — Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients," May 13, 2007, Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Consultant agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing regulations and other implementing requirements FTA may issue. (2) Equal Employment Opportunity - The owing equal employment opportunity requirements apply to the underlying con (a) Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Sex — The ultant agrees to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 '.nd equal employment opportunity provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 5332, and all applicable equal employment opportunity requirements of U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) regulations, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor," 41 C.F.R. Parts 60 et seq., (which implement Executive Order No. 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e note), and with any applicable Federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and Federal policies that may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in the course of the Project. The Consultant agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. (3) Age - In accordance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 through 634 and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Consultant agrees to refrain from discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. Exhibit F-1 301 (4) Disabilities - In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Consultant agrees that it will comply with the requirements of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. (5) DBE Program Compliance - The Commission has established a DBE Program pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 26, which applies to FTA funded agreements. The requirements and procedures of the Commission's DBE Program are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Consultant shall complete Exhibits "G" and "H" of this Agreement, or similar forms to be provided by the Commission, in compliance with the Commission's DBE Program for FTA funded agreements. Failure by Consultant or its subcontractor(s) to carry out the ommission's DBE Program procedures and requirements, or the applicable re';:;`' ements of 49 C.F.R. Part 26, section 1101(b) of SAFETEA-LU, 23 U.S.C. § 1 ': n and U.S. DOT regulations, "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Ent rises in ► 'artment of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs," 49 C F ' yart 6, shall :r considered a material breach of this Agreement. Such a materi. e. may be grounds for termination of this Agreement or such other appro • riate a • istrative remedy as the Commission deems appropriate. The Consu r • . II a re that a provision mandating compliance with the Commission's B ' m for FTA funded agreements is included in any and all sub- en tered into which arise out of or are related to this Agreement. Cons I als• • romptly provide the Commission with all necessary information • ,''status of its subcontractors. Should the DBE status of any of its .-4 on' { ors change in any way, Consultant shall promptly inform the Commissio (6) The Co financed in whole necessary to identify grees to include these requirements in each subcontract with Federal assistance provided by FTA, modified only if affected parties. 6. TERMINATION PROVISIONS The termination provisions found at Section 21 of this Agreement are consistent with the termination provisions suggested by FTA for the protection of the Federal Government. The termination provisions found at Section 21 of this Agreement control termination under this Agreement. 7. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Instructions for Certification 1. By signing and submitting a Proposal, the Consultant is providing the signed certification set out below. Exhibit F-2 302 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the Consultant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, Commission may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to Commission if at any time the Consultant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible," "lower tier covered transaction," "participant," "persons," "lower tier covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage se tions of rules implementing Executive Order 12549 [49 CFR Part 29]. You may co -ct Commission for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The Consultant agrees by submittin covered transaction be entered into, it s covered transaction with a person who is voluntarily excluded from participati• in this writing by Commission. 6. The Consultant furt clause titled "Certificat Voluntary Exclusion - lower tier covere transactions. 7. A parti prospective parti suspended, ineligibl Proposa `'; .. t, should the proposed owingly nter into any lower tier , suspended, declared ineligible, or red transaction, unless authorized in ubmitting a Proposal that it will include the Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and d Transaction", without modification, in all ons an• in all solicitations for lower tier covered overed transaction may rely upon a certification of a a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List issued by U.S. General Service Administration. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. Except for transactions authorized under Paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to all remedies available to Exhibit F-3 303 the Federal Government, Commission may pursue available remedies including suspension and/or debarment. 9. The Consultant agrees to comply, and assures the compliance of each subconsultant, lessee, or third party contractor, with Executive Orders Nos. 12549 and 12689, "Debarment and Suspension," 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note, and U.S. DOT regulations, "Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)," 49 C.F.R. Part 29. 10. The Consultant agrees to, and assures that its subconsultants, lessees and third party contractors have reviewed the "Excluded Parties Listing System" at http://elps.gov/ before entering into any third sub agreement, lease or third party contract. "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion" (1) The Consultant certifies, by submission of this bid or proposal, that neither it nor its "principals" [as defined at 49 C.F.R. § 29.105(p)] is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) When the Consultant is unable to certify to the statements in this certification, it shall attach an explanation to this proposal. 8. PROVISIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, BREACHES, OR OTHER LITIGATION Disputes - Disputes arising in the performance of this Contract which are not resolved by agreement of the parties shall be decided in writing by the Commission Executive Director, or his or her designee. This decision shall be final and conclusive unless within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of its copy, the Consultant mails or otherwise furnishes a written appeal to the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee. In connection with any such appeal, the Consultant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its position. The decision of the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall be binding upon the Consultant and the Consultant shall abide be the decision. Performance During Dispute - Unless otherwise directed by Commission, Consultant shall continue performance under this Contract while matters in dispute are being resolved. Claims for Damages - Should either party to the Contract suffer injury or damage to person or property because of any act or omission of the party or of any of his employees, agents or others for whose acts he is legally liable, a claim for damages therefor shall be made in writing to such other party within a reasonable time after the first observance of such injury of damage. Exhibit F-4 304 Remedies - Unless this contract provides otherwise, all claims, counterclaims, disputes and other matters in question between the Commission and the Consultant arising out of or relating to this agreement or its breach will be decided by arbitration if the parties mutually agree, or in a court of competent jurisdiction within the State in which the Commission is located. Rights and Remedies - The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement and the rights and remedies available hereunder shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. No action or failure to act by the Commission, or Consultant shall constitute a waiver of any right or duty afforded any of them under the Contract, nor shall any such action or failure to act constitute an approval of or acquiescence in any breach thereunder, except as may be specifically agreed in writing. FTA Notification - Consultant shall notify FTA in writing of any current or prospective major dispute, breach, default, or litigation that may affect the Federal Government's interests in the Project. If the Consultant wishes to name the Federal Government as a party to litigation, the Consultant shall inform FTA in writing before doing 9. LOBBYING Lobbying Restrictions. To the extent applicable, Coil Rant agrees to: (1) Comply, and assure the compliance of each subcontractor at any tier, with U.S. DOT regulations, "New Re ons' Lobbying," 49 C.F.R. Part 20, modified as necessary by 31 U.S.0 (2) Comply with Federal st u o ovisions, to the extent applicable, prohibiting the use of Federal assistanc unds for activities designed to influence Congress or a State legislate on le tio or appropriations, except through proper, official channels. 10. CLEAN AIR (1) The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 through 7671q. The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the Commission and understands and agrees that the Commission will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FTA and the appropriate EPA Regional Office. (2) The Consultant also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. Exhibit F-5 305 11. CLEAN WATER (1) The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 through 1377. The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the Commission and understands and agrees that the Commission will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FTA and the appropriate EPA Regional Office. (2) The Consultant also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. 12. ENERGY CONSERVATION Energy Conservation. To the extent applicable, Consultant agrees to comply with the mandatory energy efficiency standards and policies within he applicable State energy conservation plans issued in compliance with the Energy cy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6321 et seq. To the extent applicable, Cons .grees to perform an energy assessment for any building constructed, reconstruct -, ,"or mob `''-d with FTA assistance, as provided in FTA regulations, "Requirements for E gy Assessm. ," 49 C.F.R. Part 622, Subpart C. 13. CONFORMANCE WITH N NAL RCHITECTURE National Intelligent Transportation Syste applicable, Consultant agrees to Transportation Systems (ITS) 5307(c), 23 U.S.C. § 512 not on Transit Projects" 66 Federal directives th re and Standards. To the extent extent applicable, to the National Intelligent Standards as required by SAFETEA-LU § tice, "FTA National ITS Architecture Policy 455 et seq., January 8, 2001, and other subsequent 14. ADDITI L RE IREMENTS To the extent applicable, Itant agrees to comply with the Federal programs specified below and, with regard to such programs, Consultant agrees not compromise the Commission's compliance with Federal requirements as pertains to the Project. The Programs are as follows: (1) Urbanized Area Formula Program authorized under 49. U.S.C. § 5307. (2) Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5310 as amended by SAFETEA-LU and subsection 3012(b) of SAFETEA-LU, 49 U.S.C. § 5310 note, respectively. (3) New Freedom Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5317. (4) Nonurbanized Area Formula Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5311(b). Exhibit F-6 306 (5) Clean Fuels Grant Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5308. (6) Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Grant Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5316. 15. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE The Commission shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the Commission of the contract work and pay retainage to prime contractors based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from a subcontractor within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the Commission. Federal regulations (49 CFR 26.29) require that any delay or postponement of payment over 30 days may take place only for good cause and with the Commission's prior written approval. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating prime contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. These requirements shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to the prime contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the prime contractor, defici t subcontract performance, or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This provision applies tE and non -DBE prime contractors and subcontractors. 16. INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TERMS The preceding provisions include, in part, certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by the Federal Transit Authority, whether or not expressly set forth in the preceding contract provisions. All contractual provisions required by the Federal Transit Authority, as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1 F, are hereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. The Contractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any Commission requests which would cause the Commission to be in violation of the FTA terms and conditions. 17. EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS To the extent applicable to the Services, Consultant shall comply with the following: A. Equal Employment Opportunity — Consultant must comply with Executive Order 11246 (3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order 11375 (3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684), "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," and as supplemented by regulations at Exhibit F-7 307 41 CFR chapter 60, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor." B. Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874 and 40 U.S.C. 276c) — Consultant must comply with the Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, "Consultants and Subconsultants on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States"). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is otherwise entitled. The Commission shall report all suspected or reported violations to the responsible DOE contracting officer. C. Contact Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3 7-333) — Consultant must comply with Sections 102 and 107 of the Contract Work H ::' s and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333), as supplemented by Department !i' .r regulations (29 CFR Part 5). Under Section 102 of the Act, each Consultant is r red to < pute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard week of 40 rs. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided t th rker is compensated at a rate of not less than 11/2 times the basic rate of pay for rs worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. Section 107 of the Act is . - ble t struction work and provides that no laborer or mechanic is required to wo gs or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous • .,nge hes- requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or mater or icle •rdinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation o `' ns •f elligence. D. Davis -Bacon Act (40 (40 U.S.C. 276a to 2 Part 5). — Consultant shall comply with the Davis -Bacon Act nted by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR 18. FTA DISADVANTA" ED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) REQUIREMENTS A. General DBE Requirements: In accordance with Federal financial assistance agreements with the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Commission has adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Policy and Program, in conformance with Title 49 CFR Part 26, "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Programs" (the "Regulations"). This RFP is subject to these stipulated regulations. In order to ensure that Commission achieves its overall DBE Program goals and objectives, Commission encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 CFR 26 in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with U.S. DOT funds. It is the policy of the Commission to: 1. Ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts; Exhibit F-8 308 2. Create a level playing field on which DBE's can compete fairly for DOT -assisted contracts; 3. Ensure that the DBE program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; 4. Ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 C.F.R. part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBE's; 5. Help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT assisted contracts; 6. To promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally assisted contracts and procurement activities; and 7. Assist in the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program. B. Discrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of subcontracts. Any terms used herein that are defined in 49 CFR Part 26, or elsewhere in the Regulations, shall have the meaning set forth in the Regulations. C. Commission's Race -Neutral DBE Program: A Race -Neutral DBE Program is one that, while benefiting DBEs, is not solely focused on DBE firms. Therefore, under a Race -Neutral DBE Program, Commission does not establish numeric race -conscious DBE participation goals on its DOT -assisted contracts. There is no FTA DBE goal on this Project. Consultant shall not be required to achieve a specific level of DBE participation as a condition of contract compliance in the performance of this DOT -assisted contract. However, Consultant shall adhere to race -neutral DBE participation commitment(s) made at the time of award of any Task Order (as defined in the Model Contract). A D. Race -Neutral DBE Submissions and Ongoing Reporting Requirements (Post -Award): For each Task Order proposal, the successful Consultant shall complete and submit to Commission a"DBE Race -Neutral Participation Listing" in the form provided by Commission. In the event DBE(s) are utilized in the performance of the Task Order, Consultant shall comply with applicable reporting requirements. E. Performance of DBE Subconsultants: DBE subconsultants listed by Consultant in its "DBE Race -Neutral Participation Listing" submitted at the time of Task Order proposal shall perform the work and supply the materials for which they are listed, unless Consultant has received prior written authorization from Commission to perform the work with other forces or to obtain the materials from other sources. Consultant shall provide written notification to Commission in a timely manner of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation. This notice should be provided prior to the commencement of that portion of the work. F. DBE Certification Status: If a listed DBE subconsultant is decertified during the life of any Task Order, the decertified subconsultant shall notify Consultant in writing with the date of decertification. If a non -DBE subconsultant becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Task Order, the DBE subconsultant shall notify Consultant in writing with the date of Exhibit F-9 309 certification. Consultant shall furnish the written documentation to Commission in a timely manner. Consultant shall include this requirement in all subcontracts. G. Consultant's Assurance Clause Regarding Non -Discrimination: In compliance with State and Federal anti -discrimination laws, Consultant shall affirm that it will not exclude or discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in consideration of contract award opportunities. Further, Consultant shall affirm that they will consider, and utilize subconsultants and vendors, in a manner consistent with non-discrimination objectives. H. Violations: Failure by the selected Consultant(s) to carry out these requirements shall be a material breach of the contract to be awarded pursuant to this RFP, which may result in the termination of the contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to: (1) Withholding monthly progress payments; (2) Assessing sanctions; (3) Liquidated damages; and/or (4) Disqualifying the Consultant from future bidding as non-respons 49 C.F.R. § 26.13(b). I. Prompt Payment: Consultant shall pay its subconsultants for satisfactory performance of their contracts no later than 30 days from receipt of each payment Commission makes to the Consultant. 49 C.F.R. § 26.29(a), unless a shorter period is provided in the contract. J. Compliance with DBE Requirements Contained in FTA Provisions: Consultant shall comply with all DBE reporting and other requirements contained in this Agreement. Exhibit F-10 310 EXHIBIT "G" — LOBBYING ACTIVITIES DISCLOSURE Exhibit G-1 311 B RE • UIRED FORM PSomas 1 Exhibit K - Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXIBIT 10-Q Disclosure of Lobbying Activities EXHIBIT 10-Q DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES COMPLETE THIS FORM TO DISCLOSE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 1352 1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: a. contract b. grant c. cooperative agreement d. loan e. loan guarantee f. loan insurance ❑ a. bid/offer/application b. initial award c. post -award Not Applicable 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 400, Riverside, CA 92507 Prime ❑Subawardee Tier , if known 3. Report Type: ❑ a. initial b. material change For Material Change Only: year quarter date of last report 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime: Congressional District, if known Con 6. Federal Department/Agency: 8. Federal Action Number, if known: 10. Name and Address of Lobby Entity (If individual, last name, first name, MI) (attach Contin 12. Amount of Payment (check all that a 13. Form of Payment (check ®a. cash b. in-ki .;spe 15. Brief Description of Servic officer(s), employee(s), or eral Progr. me/Description: CFDA Number, if a• :ble mount, if known: dividuals Performing Services ing address if different from No. 10) e, first name, MI) essary) Type of Payment (check all that apply) a. retainer b. one-time fee c. commission d. contingent fee e deferred f. other, specify erformed or to be performed and Date(s) of Service, including ber(s) contacted, for Payment Indicated in Item 12: (attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary) 16. Continuation Sheet(s attached: Yes ❑ 17. Information requested through this form is authorized by Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying reliance was placed by the tier above when his transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to Congress semiannually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Federal Use Only: No Signature: Print Name: Sean Smith, PLS Title: Vice President Telephone No.: 909.800.8911 (c) Date: 4/21/2022 Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form - LLL Standard Form LLL Rev. 04-28-06 Distribution: Orig- Local Agency Project Files LPP 13-01 Page 1 May 8, 2013 PS 0 M A S Riverside County Transportation Commission RFQ No. 22-31-057-00 1 On -Call Right -of -Way Engineering Services 8.43 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Timothy Green, Senior Management Analyst Hector Casillas, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Surplus Declaration of Real Property BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-012 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that Certain Real Property Owned by the Commission located at assessor parcel numbers 102-091-027, a portion of 102-091-030, and a portion of certain right-of-way area, located between Serfas Club Drive and Frontage Road near Corona, California, is Non -Exempt Surplus Land, Approving the Form of Notice of Availability Therefore, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA Review"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-013 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that Certain Real Property Owned by the Commission located at a portion of 219-094-014, located near Cridge Street in the City of Riverside, California, is Exempt Surplus Land Therefore, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA Review"; and 3) If no response for the non-exempt surplus property is received from public agencies, developers, and/or contiguous landowners, authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff completed a review of the Commission's real property and determined it would be in the Commission's best interest to declare the following two parcels as surplus and offer them for sale. The first property was acquired by the Commission for the former alignment of the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project. It is adjacent to east side of Serfas Club Drive and is no longer Agenda Item 7G 313 necessary for current or future project purposes. The following table summarizes the property proposed to be declared surplus. APN Acres Location 102-091-027 Portion of 102-091-030 1.04 South of SR -91 on the east side of Serfas Club Drive and west of Frontage Road near the City of Corona The second property was acquired by the Commission for rail right of way and is south of the 91 freeway and east of Cridge Street. The city of Riverside approached the Commission to improve the crossing at this location. Staff has been in communications with the city of Riverside on the acquisition of the portion of the property. The city's project requires a small sliver of the property, which is not necessary for the Commissions current or future project purposes. The following table summarizes the property proposed to be declared surplus. APN Square Feet Location Portion of 219-094-014 92 South of SR -91 on the east side of Cridge Street in the city of Riverside Process After being declared surplus by the Commission, staff will follow the Right of Way Policies and Procedures Manual (Manual), state laws and any applicable funding requirements to dispose of the property. Staff will prioritize the order of sale based on market conditions. Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act (Government Code 54220 et.seq.) (SLA), and the Manual, a Notice of Availability (NOA) (form attached hereto as Exhibit A to the Resolution) will be delivered to public agencies and developers statutorily entitled to notice of the Commission's decision to declare the property surplus. If interested, the public agency(ies) and/or developers shall notify the Commission in writing of its intent to purchase or lease the land within 60 days after receipt of the Commission's NOA. If the Commission receives a notice of interest in response to the NOA, the Commission must negotiate in good faith for at least 90 days. If no public agency timely expresses interest in the parcel or Commission does not come to terms with an entity who responds to the NOA, then the Commission must submit a package of information and documents to the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) showing that the Commission has complied with the SLA. Within 30 days, the HCD must respond with either a letter of approval or a notice of violation; failure of HCD to timely respond is deemed approval. Upon approval, the parcel may then be offered for sale to the public. In certain circumstances, when a parcel is identified as "exempt," the 60 -day notification requirements do not apply, as defined by the Government Code. The parcel located in the city of Riverside qualifies as an exempt surplus parcel under the Government Code since the transfer of the property will be to another public entity, the city of Riverside. Agenda Item 7G 314 After completing the SLA process, an appraisal will be completed to determine the current fair market value of the surplus property. The surplus property will then be advertised for sale, utilizing the Commission's website, online publications as well as signage on the property. An Invitation for Bids will be added to the Commission's website and a defined submittal date will be provided. Staff will review the offers received based on the following criteria: 1) Price; and 2) Terms and conditions of sale. All applicants will be required to complete the Commission's Conflict of Interest form. Staff will return to the Commission for approval before entering into a purchase and sale agreement for the properties, if necessary. Staff requests that the Commission declare the following parcels as surplus property and authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale pursuant to the SLA and subsequently to the public. APN(s) Ownership Type Vacant/ Improved Sq. Ft. 102-091-027 Portion of 102-091-030 Fee Vacant 45,377 219-094-014 Fee Vacant 92 Adoption of the Resolutions does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. When the property is sold, the buyer's proposed use of the property may require a discretionary permit and CEQA review. The future use and project will be analyzed at the appropriate time in accordance with CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact at this time; however, upon sale of the above referenced properties, revenue for the Commission will be generated and deposited in the Property Sale proceeds account. Attachments: 1) Resolution Nos. 22-012 and 22-013 2) Legal Descriptions, Plat Maps, and Aerial Exhibits Agenda Item 7G 315 Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on June 27, 2022 In Favor: 8 Abstain: 0 No: 0 Agenda Item 7G 316 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-012 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 THAT REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COMMISSION LOCATED AT ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 102-091-027, A PORTION OF 102-091-030, AND A PORTION OF CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN SERFAS CLUB DRIVE AND FRONTAGE ROAD NEAR CORONA, CALIFORNIA, I5 NON-EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, APPROVING THE FORM OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY THEREFORE, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO COMPLY WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT, AND FINDING THE FOREGOING CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 102-091-027, a portion of 102-091-030, and a portion of certain right-of-way area, which together is approximately 45,377 square feet in size and is located between Serfas Club Drive and Frontage Road in Corona, California (together, the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Commission no longer has any use for the Property; and WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq. (as amended, the "Act"), applies when a local agency disposes of "surplus land," as that term is defined in Government Code section 54221; and WHEREAS, the Property is "surplus land" under the Act, because it is land owned in fee simple by the Commission for which the Commission will take formal action (in the form of adoption of this resolution) in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the Commission's use; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that prior to the disposal of any surplus land, unless an exemption applies, a local agency must issue a Notice of Availability to, among others, affordable housing developers, and thereafter, if any entity submits a qualified Notice of Interest within sixty (60) days of issuance of the Notice of Availability, the local agency must negotiate in good faith for at least ninety (90) days with any such submitting entities; and WHEREAS, the Property is not exempt from the Act; and WHEREAS, a form of Notice of Availability is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Property is depicted in Exhibit 1 attached thereto; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Riverside County Transportation Commission AS FOLLOWS: 317 SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution. SECTION 2. The Commission hereby finds and declares that the Property is "surplus land" as used in the Act, because the Property is owned in fee simple by the Commission, and the Property is surplus and is not necessary for the Commission's use. SECTION 3. The Commission hereby approves the form of Notice of Availability substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or her designee to take all necessary actions to fully comply with the Act without further need to obtain Commission approval. SECTION 5. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"). Commission staff has determined that the designation of this property as non-exempt surplus, approval of the form of NOA, and authorization for the Executive Director to comply with the Act do not have the potential for creating a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), because such actions do not constitute a "project" as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378. In the alternative, even if the actions contemplated here constituted a "project" under CEQA, they involve the sale of surplus government property, which is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to a Class 12 categorical exemption. Specifically, the government property is not located in an area of statewide, regional or areawide concern as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15206(b)(4). The Property is not located in any of the following: the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Santa Monica Mountains Zone, the California Coastal Zone, an area within 1/4 mile of a wild and scenic river, the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, the Suisun Marsh, or the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Therefore, the Commission's adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA review. Finally, adoption of the Resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. If and when the Property is sold to a purchaser, and that purchaser proposes a use for the Property that requires a discretionary permit and CEQA review, that future use and project will be analyzed at the appropriate time in accordance with CEQA. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The Clerk of the Board shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 318 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission on this 13th day of July 2022. V. Manuel Perez, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 319 EXHIBIT A Notice of Availability of Surplus Land [Attached] 320 DATE To All Interested Parties: RE: Notice of Availability of Surplus Property As required by the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220 et seq.) (the "Act"), the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (the "Commission") is providing notification that the Commission intends to sell/lease the surplus property listed in the accompanying table (together, the "Property"). APN ADDRESS SIZE (AC) ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CURRENT USE 102-091- Between Approx. C -1/C -P Commercial Vacant 027 and a Serfas 45,377 (General Retail portion of 102-091- 030 and certain right -of- way area Club Drive and Frontage Road in Corona, CA square feet Commercial) The Property is comprised of two (2) numbered parcels and a portion of right-of-way area and together total approximately 45,377 square feet of vacant land, bounded on the west by Serfas Club Drive and on the east and south by Frontage Road, and on the north by State Route 91, in Corona, California, as depicted in the site map attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 54222, you have sixty (60) days from the date this Notice was sent via certified mail or electronic mail to notify the Commission of your interest in acquiring the above property. However, this offer shall not obligate the Commission to sell the property to you. Instead, if your notice of interest is compliant with the Act, the Commission would enter into at least ninety (90) days of negotiations with you pursuant to Government Code Section 54223. If no notices of interest are received during the 60 -day period or no agreement is reached on sales price and terms, or lease terms, with a submitter of a qualifying notice of interest, the Commission may market the property to the general public. As required by Government Code Section 54227, if the Commission receives more than one letter of interest during this 60 -day period, it will give first priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households. If more than one such proposal is received, priority will be given to the proposal with the greatest number of affordable units. If more than one 321 proposal specifies the same number of affordable units, priority will be given to the proposal that has the lowest average affordability level. In the event your agency or company is interested in purchasing or leasing one or more of the properties, you must notify the Commission in writing within sixty (60) days of the date this notice was sent via certified mail or electronic mail. Notice of your interest in acquiring the property should be delivered to: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Timothy Green, Senior Management Analyst 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 You may also direct your questions to tgreen@rctc.org or by calling (951) 955-0042. Entities proposing to submit a letter of interest are advised to review the requirements set forth in the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220-54234) and the Surplus Land Act Guidelines (April 2021) promulgated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. 322 EXHIBIT 1 Depiction of Surplus Land Surplus Land nd City of u Corona Parcel 22129-11 Remnant -----, VICINITY MAP • :n. San Bernardino County APN 102-191127 APN 102-091-010 APN's: 102-091-027, Portion of 102-091-030, and Portion of ROW Area: Approximately 45,377 ± square feet Sur phis land fir•"u Ciy6oundary A/ may Catarina 511712022 323 RESOLUTION NO. 22-013 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECLARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 THAT REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COMMISSION LOCATED AT A PORTION OF 219-094-014, LOCATED NEAR CRIDGE STREET IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO COMPLY WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT, AND AUTHORIZATION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property identified as a portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 219-094-014, approximately 92.1 square feet in size and is located south of State Route 91 and on the east side of Cridge Street in Riverside, California (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Commission is anticipating the transfer of the Property to a public agency, in this case to the city of Riverside; and WHEREAS, the Commission no longer has any use for the Property; and WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq. (as amended, the "Act"), applies when a local agency disposes of "surplus land," as that term is defined in Government Code section 54221; and WHEREAS, the Property is "surplus land" under the Act, because it is land owned in fee simple by the Commission for which the Commission will take formal action (in the form of adoption of this resolution) in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the Commission's use; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that prior to the disposal of any surplus land, unless an exemption applies, a local agency must issue a Notice of Availability to, among others, affordable housing developers, and thereafter, if any entity submits a qualified Notice of Interest within sixty (60) days of issuance of the Notice of Availability, the local agency must negotiate in good faith for at least ninety (90) days with any such submitting entities; and WHEREAS, the Property is exempt from the Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Riverside County Transportation Commission AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution. 324 SECTION 2. The Commission hereby finds and declares that (i) the Property is "surplus land" and not necessary for the Agency's use, and (ii) the Property is exempt from the Act pursuant to section 54221(f)(1)(D) of the Act. The basis for this declaration is the finding that the property is being transferred to another public agency. SECTION 3. The Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or her designee to take all necessary actions to fully comply with the Act without further need to obtain Commission approval. SECTION 4. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"). Commission staff has determined that the designation of this property as exempt surplus does not have the potential for creating a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), because it is not a project as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378. Adoption of the Resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. If and when the Property is sold to a purchaser, and that purchaser proposes a use for the Property that requires a discretionary permit and CEQA review, that future use and project will be analyzed at the appropriate time in accordance with CEQA SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The Clerk of the Board shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission on this 13th day of July 2022. V. Manuel Perez, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 325 ATTACHMENT 2 PSOMAS EXHIBIT `Al' LEGAL DESCRIPTION 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 29 30 31 Caltrans Parcel No. 22129-11 Remnant In the City of Corona, County of Riverside, State of California, being those portions of the lands described in the Grant Deeds recorded January 27, 1971 as Document No. 8344, May 18,1973 as Document No. 64957, and October 25, 2007 as Document No. 2007-0658579, all of Official Records of said County, described as whole as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Land described in the Grand Deed recorded October 25, 2007 as Document No. 2007-0658579, said corner being on the westerly line of Lot 47 of Tract No. 2319, filed in Book 43, Pages 74 through 76 of Maps, records of said County, said corner also lying North 16°14'29" East 1.03 feet from the southwesterly corner thereof; thence North 83°55'14" West 77.49 feet along the southerly line of said Land to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along said southerly line North 83°55'14" West 166.47 feet; thence North 08°58'08" East 39.10 feet; thence North 09°26'47" East 37.90 feet to the general northerly line of said Land described in the Grant Deed recorded May 18,1973 as Document No. 64957; thence along the general northwesterly line of said Land the following two courses: 1) North 38°25'33" East 98.12 feet to a curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 230.00 feet; 2) northeasterly 99.61 feet along said curve through a central angle of 24°48'51"; thence North 88°56'47" East 143.16 feet to a curve concave southerly having a radius of 1173.50 feet; thence easterly 152.59 feet along said curve through a central angle of 07°27'00" to a non -tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 300.00 feet, a radial line to said curve bears North 02°13'03" West; thence southwesterly 382.48 feet along said curve through a central angle of 73°02'51"; thence South 14°44'06" West 5.15 feet to the True Point of Beginning. M:\2PTG010501\SURVEY\LEGALS\22129_APN 102-091-004-005-006\Legals\22129-11.docx Page 1 of 2 7/3/2018 326 PSOMAS 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 29 30 31 Containing 45,377 square feet. See Exhibit `A2' attached hereto and made apart hereof. The distances described herein are grid distances and are based on California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6, 2007.00 epoch. Ground distances may be obtained by dividing grid distances by the mean combination factor of the courses being described. The mean combination factor for this conversion is 0.99997476. Prepared under the direction of L 7. 5.201(3 Jeremy L. Evans, PLS 5282 Date M:\2PTGO10501\SURVEY\LEGALS\22129_APN 102-091-004-005-006\Legals\22129-11.docx Page 2 of 2 7/3/2018 327 EXHIBIT A2 PARCEL# TITLE AREA 02-091-004-005-006\Exhibits M:*PTG010501\SURVEY\LEGALS-22129 APN 22129 -11 -REM REMNANT 4 5 377 S F MOST SOUTHERY CORNER POB ROUTE 91 RIVERSIDE FREEWAY EXISTING FWY- R/W ..j �\ LOT °tafb001 1 LOT '7c'? DETAIL "A" ,1)^), N.T.S. tiN� Qz L3�' i L2 (L. ' W 44' i3 icr 'Z I \�1 C1'I TPOB N83°55'144 W` N83°55'14"W i/ 77.49' i DETAIL "C" r1 N.T.S. PROPOS D R iw (R) TPOB POB C ) Indicates Radial Bearing True Point of Beginning Point of Beginning Parcel Number LTAILN.T.S. LEGEND EXISTING R/W SURVEY C/L 88°56'47"E V L 152.59' . 143.16' REC. 05-18-1973 ALLry CURVE TABLE C1 A=73°02'51" R=300.00' L=382.48' RADIAL TABLE LINE TABLE R1 R2 R3 N26°45'36"W L1 NO2°13'03"W L2 N06°23'47"E L3 L4 N83°55,144 166.47' N16°14'29"E N08° 58'08"E N09° 26'47"E S14°44'06HW REFERENCES 1.03' 39.10' 37.90' 5.15' R1 - DOC. NO. 8344, 0.R, REC'D 01/27/1971 R2 - DOC. No. 2007-0658579, O.R. REC'D 10/25/2007 NOTES Coordinates and bearings are on CCS 1983(2007.00) Zone 6. Distances and stationing ore grid distances. Divide by 0.99997476 to obtain ground distances. 22129 -11 -REM REMNANT FEET 0 40 80 160 240 PREPARED BY: PSOMAS 3 Hutton Centre Drive Ste. 200 Santo Ana CoIifornia 1J2707 (714)751-7373/(714)545-8883 (Fox) DATE: 07-03-2018 REV.1: EA: OF540 FA*: DISTRICT 8 COUNTS RIV ROUTE SHEET PM SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS 91 3.7 1 Map Check Report Project: Alignment: Description: Default 22129 -11 -REM Type Point Name\ Northing Easting Elevation Direction Length P0B ( 39) N 83°55'14" W PI ( 40) N 8°58'08" E PI ( 41) N 9°26'47" E PI ( 42) N 38°25'33" E PC ( 43) Radius: Delta: Length: Chord: Tangent: Middle Ordinate: External: S 51°34'27" E (Radial) CC ( 44) N 50°49'58" E (Chord ) S 26°45'36" E (Radial) PT ( 45) N 88°56'47" E PC ( 46) Radius: Delta: Length: Chord: Tangent: Middle Ordinate: External: S 1°03'13" E (Radial) CC ( 47) S 87°19'43" E (Chord ) S 6°23'47" W (Radial) PRC ( 48) Radius: Delta: Length: Chord: Tangent: Middle Ordinate: External: N 2°13'03" W (Radial) CC ( 49) S 51°15'31" W (Chord ) N 75°15'54" W (Radial) PT ( S 14°44'06" W POE ( 39) 166.47 39.10 37.90 98.12 230.00 24°48'51" 99.61 98.83 50.60 5.37 5.50 143.16 1173.50 7°27'00" 152.59 152.48 76.40 2.48 2.48 300.00 73°02'51" 382.48 357.09 222.18 58.92 73.32 5.15 Northing Error: 0.00 ft Easting Error: 0.00 ft Closing Direction: S 64°03'11" W Closing Distance: 0.01 ft Closed Area: 45376.8 sq ft (1.0 ac) Perimeter: 1124.57 ft Precision: 197697.82 2265896.85 2265914.48 2265953.10 2265990.49 2266067.35 2265924.41 6147072.01 6146906.48 6146912.57 6146918.79 6146979.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6147159.96 0.00 2266129.77 6147056.40 2266132.41 6147199.53 2264959.10 6147221.11 2266125.30 6147351.85 2265825.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6147363.46 0.00 2265901.83 6147073.32 2265896.85 6147072.01 0.00 0.00 329 Surplus Land Parcel 22129-11 Remnant - -, VICINITY MAP Orange County 6 Miles 1 Riv lurup,, Val r- t t Et su►r.nt.gf Labe M thrw. mot ,no • 0 i Into - arbot d City of Corona aamirsTio ir..iryyu "rryet,~,~".kt*kgt 0 100 200 Feet APN's: 102-091-027, Portion of 102-091-030, and Portion of ROW Area: Approximately 45,377 ± square feet 330 tta. st' -- r[_ Surplus Land City Boundary Highway Centerline 1 5/17/2022 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Project: Cridge @ RCTC — City Right of Way Por. A.P.N.: 219-094-014 That certain real property located in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: That portion of Lot 103 of Francis Cuttle's Subdivision, as shown by map on file in Book 11, Page 48 of Maps, Records of San Bernardino County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly corner of said Lot 103; Thence North 31°57'58" East, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 103 and the northwest line of the Right of Way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a distance of 12.19 feet to the northeast corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed to the City of Riverside by Grant Deed Recorded April 21, 1978, as Instrument No. 78069 of Official Records of Riverside County California and to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing North 31°57'58" East, along said southeasterly line of Lot 103, a distance of 7.87 feet Thence North 75°00'41" West, leaving said southeast line of Lot 103, a distance of 9.45 feet; Thence South 61°25'41" West, a distance of 10.75 feet to southwest line of said Grant Deed and to the beginning of a non -tangent curve, concave Northerly having a radius of 367.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears South 16°36'03" West; Thence southeasterly to the left along said curve and said southwest line an arc length of 14.94 feet through a central angle of 2°19'57" to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area — 92.1 S.F. more or less This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyors Act. C 5/k3/Zl Prep. Curtis C. Stephens, L.S. 7519 Date 331 LINE DATA CURVE DATA / L1 N31'57'58"E 12.19' C1 R=367' A=2'19'57" L=14.94' L2 N31'57'58"E 7.87' L3 N75'00'41 "W 9.45' L4 S61'25'41 "W 10.75' FRANC CUTTLE'S SUBDMSION B 11/48 S.B. CO. 4 .h 407,1 o -2/ u) 6 0 L1 QQ. c4, Q- 4 co f o� csest or CITY RIGHT OF WAY POR. APN 219-094-014 AREA — 92.1 S.F.± 1.190 26,7 .10 b 4. v ti • ry • CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. THIS PLAT IS SOLELY AN AID IN LOCATING THE PARCEL(S) DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT A PART OF THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION THEREIN. SCALE: 1"=40' DRAWN BY: CURT DATE: 5/18/22 SHEET 1 OF 1 SUBJECT: CRIDGE STREET - QUIET ZONE - RIGHT OF WAY FROM RCTC 332 Surplus Land - Portion of APN 219-094-014 R'ancho,Jurupar R'egsiionail P,a rJ Leann :qws kVVStoriaiCIubj Golf Go u rs e1 Central Ave 0 Arlington Ave Esri, NASA,.1GA, USGS, FEMA, City of Riverside, Cotdnty of Riverside, Californ4 State Portion of APN 219-094-014. Approximately 92.1 sq ft 333 0 20 40 60 Feet Surplus Land Centerline Date Saved: 6/8/2022 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Project: Cridge @ RCTC — City Right of Way Por. A.P.N.: 219-094-014 That certain real property located in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: That portion of Lot 103 of Francis Cuttle's Subdivision, as shown by map on file in Book 11, Page 48 of Maps, Records of San Bernardino County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly corner of said Lot 103; Thence North 31°57'58" East, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 103 and the northwest line of the Right of Way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a distance of 12.19 feet to the northeast corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed to the City of Riverside by Grant Deed Recorded April 21, 1978, as Instrument No. 78069 of Official Records of Riverside County California and to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing North 31°57'58" East, along said southeasterly line of Lot 103, a distance of 7.87 feet Thence North 75°00'41" West, leaving said southeast line of Lot 103, a distance of 9.45 feet; Thence South 61°25'41" West, a distance of 10.75 feet to southwest line of said Grant Deed and to the beginning of a non -tangent curve, concave Northerly having a radius of 367.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears South 16°36'03" West; Thence southeasterly to the left along said curve and said southwest line an arc length of 14.94 feet through a central angle of 2°19'57" to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Area — 92.1 S.F. more or less This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyors Act. C 5/k3/Zl Prep. Curtis C. Stephens, L.S. 7519 Date 334 LINE DATA CURVE DATA / L1 N31'57'58"E 12.19' C1 R=367' A=2'19'57" L=14.94' L2 N31'57'58"E 7.87' L3 N75'00'41 "W 9.45' L4 S61'25'41 "W 10.75' FRANC CUTTLE'S SUBDMSION B 11/48 S.B. CO. 4 .h 407,1 o -2/ u) 6 0 p0• '0.0 L1 QQ. c4, Q- 4 co f o� csest or CITY RIGHT OF WAY POR. APN 219-094-014 AREA — 92.1 S.F.± 1.190 26,7 ry .10 (0 • CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. THIS PLAT IS SOLELY AN AID IN LOCATING THE PARCEL(S) DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT A PART OF THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION THEREIN. SCALE: 1"=40' DRAWN BY: CURT DATE: 5/18/22 SHEET 1 OF 1 SUBJECT: CRIDGE STREET - QUIET ZONE - RIGHT OF WAY FROM RCTC 335 Surplus Land - Portion of APN 219-094-014 R'ancho,Jurupar R'egsiionail P,a rJ Leann :qws kVVStoriaiCIubj Golf Go u rs e1 Central Ave 0 Arlington Ave Esri, NASA,.1GA, USGS, FEMA, City of Riverside, Cotdnty of Riverside, Californ4 State Portion of APN 219-094-014. Approximately 92.1 sq ft 336 0 20 40 60 Feet Surplus Land Centerline Date Saved: 6/8/2022 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Angela Ferreira, Senior Management Analyst Hector Casillas, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements for On -Call Right of Way Environmental Site Assessment Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 22-31-068-00 with Dudek for the on -call right of way environmental site assessment services for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed $350,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultant under the terms of the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Environmental Site Assessments are necessary to support the Right of Way department's Commission projects, future Measure A highway and rail projects, as well as projects for the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), for which the Commission is the managing agency as of January 1, 2021. The presence of hazardous substances needs to be investigated prior to property acquisitions. Therefore, it is necessary for the Commission and RCA to exercise due diligence in identifying hazardous materials and potential hazardous substance related problems. Performing early testing of known or potentially contaminated sites may avoid or, at least, minimize costs and schedule delays on Commission projects. On -call consultants will be required to furnish specialized environmental engineering and field services including, but not limited to, site assessments and investigations, remedial investigation/feasibility studies, remediation action plans, remediation action design, Agenda Item 7H 337 post-remediation monitoring at specified sites, hazardous waste remediation, abatement, lead and asbestos testing, and removal of materials. Phase I — Initial site assessment shall include, but not be limited to, identifying hazardous and potentially hazardous problems. Phase II — Site investigations shall include, but not be limited to, items such as work plans, health and safety plans, surveys and surface geophysical investigations, drilling, sampling, laboratory analysis, and reporting. In November 2018, the Commission approved similar contracts with three firms for up to three-year terms; these contracts have been used successfully to deliver projects and react to new and changing conditions rapidly. The total authorized amount on those contracts was also $300,000, of which approximately $100,000 was expended. Procurement Process Pursuant to Government Code 4525 et seq, selection of architect, engineer, and related services shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Therefore, staff used the qualification method of selection for the procurement. Evaluation criteria included elements such as qualifications of firm, staffing and project organization, project understanding and approach, and the ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of a request for qualifications (RFQ). RFQ No. 22-31-068-00 for on -call right of way environmental site assessment services was released by staff on February 24, 2022. The RFQ was posted on the Commission's Planet Bids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Through Planet Bids, 36 firms downloaded the RFQ; 5 of these firms are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the March 8, 2022, clarification deadline. Four firms — Dudek (Riverside); Kleinfelder (Riverside); Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Irvine); Ninyo & Moore (Fontana) — submitted responsive and responsible statements of qualifications prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on March 24, 2022. Based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ, the firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Based on the evaluations committee's assessment of the written statement of qualifications and pursuant to the terms of the RFQ the evaluation committee shortlisted and invited all four firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews were conducted on April 14, 2022. The evaluation committee conducted a subsequent evaluation of each firm, based on both written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer. Accordingly, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Dudek for on -call right of Agenda Item 7H 338 way environmental site assessment services, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. As a result of the evaluation committee's assessment of the written statements of qualifications, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Dudek for a three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $350,000, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. The Commission's model on -call professional services agreement will be entered into with the consultant firm, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff oversight of the contract and task orders will maximize the effectiveness of the consultant and minimize costs to the Commission. Fiscal Impacts Funding for these agreements will be provided by various highway, rail, and conservation projects. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2022/23 and 2023/24+ Amount: $100,000 $250,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A, State Transportation Improvement Program, various Federal, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, RCA reimbursements Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 623999 81403 00014 0000 262 3181403 654199 81403 00014 0000 265 33 81403 r22001 81403 00014 0000 750 68 81403 Fiscal Procedures Approved: / ' Date: 06/16/2022 Attachment: Draft On -Call Professional Services Agreement 22-31-068-00 with Dudek Agenda Item 7H 339 Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on June 27, 2022 In Favor: 9 Abstain: 0 No: 0 Agenda Item 7H 340 Agreement No. 22-31-068-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSITION 1 B, FTA AND FHWA FUNDING ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH DUDEK FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SERVICES Parties and Date. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2022, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and DUDEK ("Consultant"), a S -Corporation. The Commission and Consultant are sometimes referred to herein individually as "Party", and collectively as the "Parties". Recitals. A. On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the RiversiidCounty Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). B. Pursuai' fto Pub Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to allocate the proc s of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. C. On November 5, 2'002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. D. A source of funding for payment for on -call professional consulting services provided under this Agreement may be State Proposition 1B funds, Federal Highway Administration Funds ("FHWA") administered by the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), and/or funds from the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA"). E. Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain on -call right of way environmental site assessment services in the County of Riverside, California. Services shall be provided on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and the Consultant ("Task Order"). Consultant represents that 341 it is experienced in providing such services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. F. The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services on an on -call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein and in each Task Order (each such project shall be designated a "Project" under this Agreement). Terms. 1. General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the on -call right of way phase 1 & phase I1 environmental assess ent services for the Projects ("Services"). The Services are generally described in E • it "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Services shall be particularly described in the individual Task Orders issued by the Commission's ' cu Director or designee. No Services shall be performed unless authorized by y execu ' ask Order. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordanc ° " ith, is Agree °- nt, the relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorpo hw in by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulation 2. Commencement of Service tant shall commence work upon receipt of a written "Notice to Proceed" or i R' •' ice to Proceed" from Commission. 3. Pre -Award Audi extent Caltrans procedure Proceed" may be continent questions raised duri consider approval contingent on meet the Commission to to Consultant's files shall b reviews. In addition, the ap agency, may require that prior to performance of any work for which Federal reimbursement is requested and provided, that said federal agency or Caltrans must give to Commission an "Authorization to Proceed". e federal funding for this Project, and to the ion therewith, issuance of a "Notice to omp e''"on and approval of a pre -award audit. Any d audit shall be resolved before the Commission will The federal aid provided under this Agreement is requirements and could be withdrawn, thereby entitling Agreement, if the procedures are not completed. The ained in a manner to facilitate Federal and State process cable federal agency, or Caltrans acting in behalf of a federal 4. Audit Procedures. Consultant and subconsultant contracts, including cost proposals and ICR, are subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, a contract audit, an incurred cost audit, an Independent Cost Review (ICR) Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, this Agreement, Consultant's cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is Consultant's responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA's work papers including making copies as necessary. This Agreement, Consultant's cost proposal, and 342 ICR shall be adjusted by Consultant and approved by the Commission's contract manager to conform to the audit or review recommendations. Consultant agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into this Agreement by this reference if directed by Commission at its sole discretion. Refusal by Consultant to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of the Agreement terms and cause for termination of this Agreement and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. Additional audit provisions applicable to this Agreement are set forth in Sections 23 and 24 of this Agreement. 5. Term. 5.1 This Agreement shall go into effect on the date first set forth above, contingent upon approval by Commission, and Consultant . hall commence work after notification to proceed by Commission's Contract Adminis three years from the date set forth above, unless exten case shall the term of this Agreement exceed three 3 be completed within the term. 5.2 Consultant is advised tha not binding on Commission until this Agreemen Commission. 5.3 This Agreement sha unless earlier terminated as pr within the term of this Agree deadlines. All applicable i effect following the terminatio is Agr 6. the Commission's Administrator for th Administrator"). Commi behalf of the Commission r. This Agreement shall end contract amendment. In no II Task Order work should mendation for contract award is Ily executed and approved by the ffect until the date set forth above, Consultant shall complete the Services eet any other established schedules and isions of this Agreement shall remain in ment. Com dministrator. The Commission hereby designates ector, or his or her designee, to act as its Contract nce of this Agreement ("Commission's Contract Contract Administrator shall have the authority to act on all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Contract Administrator shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Contract Administrator or his or her designee. 7. Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Susan Smith to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her professional skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's Contract Administrator and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Services. 343 Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Contract Administrator. 8. Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions herein. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are: Susan Smith, Audrey Herscheberger, Glenna McMahon, Nicole Peacock, or as otherwise identified in the Task Order. 9. Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant rep.; ents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform . v ices, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately co • ete Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance and con ent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by pr ssio .Is in th game discipline in the State of California. Consultant warrants that al I es and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Servi ssigned to them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commiss ,1 * ,t its a •yees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and appr• .te r nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such .es d approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agr- . t. sultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbu men om t Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions a the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provide. •r h and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and of -s ^vided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arisin ant's errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its is who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incomp t, eat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of per r property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 10. Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations 344 respecting such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Task Orders; Commencement of Services; Schedule of Services. Consultant shall commence Services under a Task Order within five (5) days of receiving a fully executed Task Order from the Commission. Task Orders shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Each Task Order shall identify the funding source(s) to be used to fund the Services under the relevant Task Order, and Consultant shall comply with the requirements specified herein, and in the attached exhibits, applicable to the identified funding source(s). Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with any schedule of Servic-s set forth in a Task Order ("Schedule"). Consultant represents that it has the profess'- `_,:I and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such c•.; .ns. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Co sio all respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of ' y'' missio ontract Administrator, Consultant shall provide a more detailed sched .f an,:'cipated •,E, ormance to meet the Schedule of Services. 10.1 Modification of the Commission, through correspondence required Services within the scheduled informed of all anticipated delay modification is necessary, Co for approval by Commission 10.2 Commission's Co Commission, on a standard day and ti discussions concerning , schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future Project .jectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received by the Commission and other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting. ule. ultant shall regularly report to the orts, its progress in providing en . Commission shall be promptly that Consultant determines that a schedule ptly submit a revised Schedule of Services strator. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings with the and other interested parties, as requested by the is or as may be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a trend meetings will encompass focused and informal 10.3 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the Schedule of Services. Submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 11. Delay in Performance. 11.1 Excusable Delays. Should Consultant be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of the Agreement by 345 reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. 11.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 12.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 11.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement o agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable step and additional costs, resulting from any such exten 12. Preliminary Review of Work. All products prepared for submission in the course shall be submitted to the Commission's Contra Commission may require revisions of su fts pn In the event plans and designs are to b plans and designs shall be contingent upo required in connection with Fe Administrator, in his or her sol to be not in accordance wi Commission's Contract Admin work at no cost to the 13. Appe Consultant shall ren Project or necessary to t required to, and will not, re questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal opinion. the Parties. Upon such nded as necessary by the inimize delay in completion, orking • ers, and similar work g Services under this Agreement ministrator in draft form, and the formal submission and approval. art of the Project, final detailed nvironmental clearance as may be In the event that Commission's Contract mines the formally submitted work product care established under this Agreement, or may require Consultant to revise and resubmit the arings. If and when required by the Commission, ce at public hearings or other meetings related to the rmance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not be er any decision, interpretation or recommendation regarding 14. Opportunity to Cure; Inspection of Work. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunity to cure, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during Project implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. Consultant shall allow the Commission's Contract Administrator, Caltrans and FHWA to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 346 15. Claims Filed by Contractor. 15.1 If claims are filed by the Commission's contractor for the Project ("Contractor") relating to work performed by Consultant's personnel, and additional information or assistance from the Consultant's personnel is required by the Commission in order to evaluate or defend against such claims; Consultant agrees to make reasonable efforts to make its personnel available for consultation with the Commission's construction contract administration and legal staff and for testimony, if necessary, at depositions and at trial or arbitration proceedings. 15.2 Consultant's personnel that the Commission considers essential to assist in defending against Contractor claims will be made available on reasonable notice from the Commission. Consultation or testimony will be reimbursed at the same rates, including travel costs that are being paid for the Consultant's •ersonnel services under this Agreement. 15.3 Services of the Consultant's connection with Contractor claims will be perf amendment, if necessary, extending the termi finally resolve the claims. 15.4 Nothing contained i Consultant's indemnification obligation conflict between this Section and Section intended to obligate the Com personnel related to Contrac defend the Commission pu 16. Final Ac has satisfactorily c term set forth her Acceptance. Upon hereunder, unless othe request issuance of a Noti completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty -free non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for governmental purposes. nd other support staff in t to a written contract greement in order to Sect's, _u ;hall be construed to in any way limit ection 29. In the case of any 9 shall govern. This Section is not burse Consultant for time spent by its h Consultant is required to indemnify and of this Agreement. determination by the Commission that Consultant es required under this Agreement and within the ission shall give Consultant a written Notice of Final such notice, Consultant shall incur no further costs cified in the Notice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily 17. Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including 347 those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. For example, and not by way of limitation, a signed Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or published Record of Decision may be required to be approved and/or completed by the United States Department of Transportation. For Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 18. Fees and Payment. 18.1 The method of payment for thi • ree ii`<_ t will be based on actual cost plus a fixed fee. Commission shall reimburs, onsultan L ., actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, travel, equipm- ent costs, o = head and other direct costs) incurred by Consultant in performanc ervices. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for actual costs that exceed the est ed wage rates, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental, overhead, ant esti -d costs set forth in the approved Consultant cost proposal attached her:. ibi ` C" and incorporated herein by reference, or any cost proposal included • o ask Order ("Cost Proposal") unless additional reimbursement is p ,; for written amendment. The overhead rates included in the attached Ex "C" • 'all be ed for the term of the Master Agreement, and shall not be subject to a• t required by the applicable funding source. In In no event, shall Co tan reimbursed for overhead costs at a rate that exceeds Commission's appro te set forth in the Cost Proposal. In the event that Commission dete 4 "' es that " cha '• a to the Services from that specified in the Cost Proposal, this Agre or a Task Order is required, the Agreement time or actual costs reimbursable Co ission shall be adjusted by written amendment to accommodate the chan• , pork. The maximum total cost as specified in Section 18.8 shall not be exceeded, unless authorized by a written amendment. 18.2 In addition to the allowable incurred costs, Commission shall pay Consultant a fixed fee to be set forth in each Task Order ("Fixed Fee"). The Fixed Fee is nonadjustable for each Task Order, except in the event of a significant change in the Scope of Services, and such adjustment is made by written amendment. 18.3 Reimbursement for transportation and subsistence costs shall not exceed the rates specified in the approved Cost Proposal. In addition, payments to Consultant for travel and subsistence expenses claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules, unless otherwise authorized by Commission. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, and Commission has not otherwise approved said rates, then 348 Consultant is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to the Commission on demand. 18.4 When milestone cost estimates are included in the approved Cost Proposal for a Task Order, Consultant shall obtain prior written approval for a revised milestone cost estimate from the Contract Administrator before exceeding such cost estimate. 18.5 Progress payments shall be made monthly in arrears based on Services provided and allowable incurred costs. A pro rata portion of the Fixed Fee shall be included in the monthly progress payments. If Consultant fails to submit the required deliverable items according to the schedule set forth in the Scope of Services, Commission shall have the right to delay payment or terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Termination. 18.6 No payment shall be made prior to approval of any Services, nor for any Services performed prior to approval of this Agreement. 18.7 Consultant shall be reimbursed, as promptly as fiscal procedures will permit upon receipt by Commission's Contract Administrator of itemized invoices in triplicate. Invoices shall be submitted no later than 45 calendar days after the performance of work for which Consultant is billing. Invoices shall detail the work performed on each milestone and each project as applicable. Invoices shall follow the format stipulated for the approved Cost Proposal and shall reference this Agreement number and project title. Final invoice must contain the final cost and all credits due Commission including any equipment purchased under the Equipment Purchase provisions of this Agreement. The final invoice should be submitted within 60 calendar days after completion of Consultant's work. Invoices shall be maile ommission's Contract Administrator at the following address: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attention: Accounts Payable P.O. 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 18.8 The total amount payable by Commission, including the Fixed Fee, shall not exceed the amount set forth in each Task Order. 18.9 Salary increases shall be reimbursable if the new salary is within the salary range identified in the approved Cost Proposal and is approved by Commission's Contract Administrator. For personnel subject to prevailing wage rates as described in the California Labor Code, all salary increases, which are the direct result of changes in the prevailing wage rates are reimbursable. 18.10 Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 349 18.11 All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 19. Disputes. 19.1 Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement that is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the Parties shall be decided by a committee consisting of RCTC's Contract Administrator and the Director of Capital Projects, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by Consultant. 19.2 Not later than 30 days after completion of all Services under this Agreement, Consultant may request review by the Commission's Executive Director of unresolved claims or disputes, other than audit. The request for review will be submitted in writing. 19.3 Neither the pendency of a dispu committee will excuse Consultant from full and timely terms of this Agreement. 20. Termination. 20.1 Commission resery (30) calendar days written notice to Con termination stated in the notice. Commis at any time, for any or no reaso the notice of termination of T 20.2 Commis Consultant fail to perf herein provided. I Services in any Agreement with Con under this Agreement cost of completion to Co case, the overage shall be deducted from any sum due Consultant under this Agreement and the balance, if any, shall be paid to Consultant upon demand. or its consideration by the nce in accordance with the the righ"''` , erminate this Agreement upon thirty r no reason, with the reasons for inate Services under a Task Order, ctive •ate of termination to be specified in ate this Agreement with Consultant should ants herein contained at the time and in the manner h termination, Commission may proceed with the pro•er by Commission. If Commission terminates this mission shall pay Consultant the sum due to Consultant s completed and accepted prior to termination, unless the sion exceeds the funds remaining in the Agreement. In such 20.3 In addition to the above, payment upon termination shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Contract Administrator to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination 20.4 Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein, and deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as 350 may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 20.5 In addition to the above, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did not meet the standard of care established in this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into future agreements with Consultant. 20.6 The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 20.7 Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otheinNise arise from the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cadie, as provided in this Section. 20.8 Consultant may not terminat this Agreement except for cause. 21. Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements. 21.1 Consultant agrees to them t Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., shall be used to determine the cost allowability of individual items. 21.2 Consultant also agrees to comply with federal procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. 21.3 Any costs for which payment has been made to CONSULTANT that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200 and 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., are subject to repayment by Consultant to Commission. 21.4 All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 22. Retention of Records/Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with, as applicable, 2 CFR Part 200, Public Contract Code 10115, et seq. and Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 21, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable and other matters connected with the performance of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code 8546.7; Consultant, subconsultants, and Commission shall maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to, the costs of administering this Agreement. All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the Agreement period and for three years 351 from the date of final payment under this Agreement. The State, State Auditor, Commission, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the State or Federal Government shall have access to any books, records, and documents of Consultant and it's certified public accountants (CPA) work papers that are pertinent to this Agreement and indirect cost rates (ICR) for audit, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested. Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain this provision. 23.1 Accounting System. Consultant and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate expenditures by line item for the Services. The accounting system of Consultant and its subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. 23. Audit Review Procedures. 23.1 Any dispute concerning a qu post audit of this Agreement that is not dispos Commission's Chief Financial Officer. 23.2 Not later than 30 Consultant may request a review by Co audit issues. The request for review shal 23.3 Neither Commission shall excuse C the terms of this Agreement. on of fac ` ':u' ing under an interim or by .. greeme '', shall be reviewed by uance of the final audit report, f Financial Officer of unresolved d in writing. of a dispute nor its consideration by nd timely performance, in accordance with 24.1 ing c' tained in this Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation be - •mmission and any subconsultant(s), and no subcontract shall relieve Consultant o esponsibilities and obligations hereunder. Consultant agrees to be as fully responsible to Commission for the acts and omissions of its subconsultant(s) and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant. Consultant's obligation to pay its subconsultant(s) is an independent obligation from Commission's obligation to make payments to the Consultant. 24.2 Consultant shall perform the Services contemplated with resources available within its own organization and no portion of the Services pertinent to this Agreement shall be subcontracted without written authorization by Commission's Contract Administrator, except that, which is expressly identified in the approved Cost Proposal. 24.3 Consultant shall pay its subconsultants within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of each payment made to Consultant by Commission. 352 24.4 Any subcontract in excess of $25,000 entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this Agreement to be applicable to subconsultants. 24.5 Any substitution of subconsultant(s) must be approved in writing by Commission's Contract Administrator prior to the start of work by the subconsultant(s). 24.6 Exhibit "C" may set forth the rates at which each subconsultant shall bill the Consultant for Services and that are subject to reimbursement by the Commission to Consultant. Additional Direct Costs, as defined in Exhibit "C" shall be the same for both the Consultant and all subconsultants, unless otherwise identified in Exhibit "C" or in a Task Order. The subconsultant rate schedules and cost proposals contained herein are for accounting purposes only. 25. Equipment Purchase 25.1 Prior authorization, in writing, by shall be required before Consultant enters into subcontract for supplies, equipment, or services the necessity or desirability of incurring such 25.2 For purchase of an the Cost Proposal and exceeding $5,00 Contract Administrator is required. Thre the request for such purchase, •, abs 25.3 Any eq the following: Consultant sh Nonexpendable prop acquisition cost of sold or traded in, this Agreement, or equipment and credit equipment at the best pr established Commission procedures; and credit Commission in an amount equal to the sales price. If Consultant elects to keep the equipment, fair market value shall be determined at Consultant's expense, on the basis of a competent independent appraisal of such equipment. Appraisals shall be obtained from an appraiser mutually agreeable to by Commission and Consultant. If Consultant determines to sell the equipment, the terms and conditions of such sale must be approved in advance by Commission. 2 CFR, Part 200 requires a credit to Federal funds when participating equipment with a fair market value greater than $5,000 is credited to the Project. on's Contract Administrator ted purchase order, or ovide an evaluation of or consulting work not covered in ion, in writing, by Commission's quotations must be submitted with of bidding must be adequately justified. as a result of this Agreement is subject to n inventory of all nonexpendable property. as having a useful life of at least two years and an e purchased equipment needs replacement and is all receive a proper refund or credit at the conclusion of ment is terminated, Consultant may either keep the on in an amount equal to its fair market value, or sell such obtainable at a public or private sale, in accordance with 25.4 All subcontracts in excess $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 26. Labor Code Requirements. 26.1 Prevailing Wages. 353 (a) Consultant shall comply with the State of California's General Prevailing Wage Rate requirements in accordance with California Labor Code, Section 1770, and all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services. (b) Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement, if for more than $25,000 for public works construction or more than $15,000 for the alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance of public works, shall contain all of the provisions of this Section. (c) When prevailing wages apply to the Services described in the Scope of Services, transportation and subsistence costs shall be reimbursed at the minimum rates set by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) as outlined in the applicable Prevailing Wage Determination. See http://www.dir.ca.gov. (d) Copies of the prevailing rate a er diem wages in effect at commencement of this Agreement are on file at the Com on's offices. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages I f a craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available ntereste`. . rties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal • r,' e of •usines d at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold th m ion, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from . aims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or all * failure comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 26.2 DIR Resist an applicable "public works" Sections 1725.5 and 1771. with the Department of Indust duration of the Projec be subject to com Relations. It sha registration and labo e Services are being performed as part of e" project, then pursuant to Labor Code nd all subconsultants must be registered lations.Consultant shall maintain registration for the e same of any subconsultants. This Project may also and enforcement by the Department of Industrial nt's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable e requirements. 26.3 Eight- our Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 354 26.4 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub- onsultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as co ,, iJ ute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in th :. of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that t responsi.4,., for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 17 17 7.6 and 77.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occ: ,-tio► les with Consultant 27. Ownershi • of Materials/C•=' ntialit 27.1 Documents & Data. perpetual license for Commissio copyrights and designs embo materials, data and other do expression, including but not recorded on comput Consultant under t ement creates an exclusive and , modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all ecifications, studies, drawings, estimates, authorship fixed in any tangible medium of o, phys°' al drawings or data magnetically or otherwise hich are prepared or caused to be prepared by uments & Data"). hall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted -, sive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares un`' 'r this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 27.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary 355 rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be respons':i • obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or age •f Co Itant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Shou onsultan , her during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use of „.e above eferenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approv t ommission. All materials and do Consultant for general use prior to the ex copyright of any other party or pubf avai continue to be the property of t stated prior to execution of th. the right to grant the exclusi provided herein. perpetual license to otherwise owned by collective, insurrectional, ere developed or prepared by the is °'- greement and which are not the n • .,. y other computer applications, shall However, unless otherwise identified and sultant represents and warrants that it has icense for all such Intellectual Property as fu er is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and odify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, pplemental work created under this Agreement. 27.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 356 27.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 28. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of Commission's choosing), indemnify and hold Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged neglige acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employ.- =v`, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the perforl u e of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the • - en consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other r- y ed costs * expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense, -'d ris :; any an• I such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kin• t ,;y be brought or instituted against Commission, Caltrans and their directors, offic officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall p - • satis y judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission, a •r eir directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, • volu_ '4. , in y such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall re 1a�i�� • ' Co ` ; ission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consult -3_, age r' , an.° - volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasona '.A;.a -s, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforci mnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not b- -s r • t• urance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, Caltrans, their dire +;figs offices •ffi rs, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. If Consultant's o defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant's performance; ,, a "design professional" (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant's indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant's liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault. Consultant's obligations as set forth in this Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 29. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or 357 persons, including wrongful death, inverse condemnation, and any claims related to property acquisition and relocation rules or failure to detect or abate hazardous materials, which are brought by a third party, and which , in any manner arise out of or are incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, Caltrans, and their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission, Caltrans or their directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant s- II reimburse Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employe: consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, in • reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith n en . ing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnif all not b- -stricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, C ns heir dir- tors, officials officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. anding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Se 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil i ecti 782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, reck ful misconduct of the Consultant. Consultant's obligations as set - h in Sec on 29 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 30. Insurance. 30.1 Agreement until i secured all insuran acceptable to the Com commence work on any Section. nce. Consultant shall not commence work under this ence satisfactory to the Commission that it has der this Section, in a form and with insurance companies addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to ntract until it has secured all insurance required under this 30.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (a) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, 358 code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (b) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the . abor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000 x.; per accident. 30.3 Professional Liability. Consult sh ocure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain •r a perio five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissio iabif., insura a appropriate to their profession. For Consultant, such insuranc _ha e in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be rsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall itten o policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, erro o io of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as desinated p•' ,:y must specifically include work performed under this Agreeme •olic ust "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishi ► rer's ty to defend. Subconsultants of Consultant shall obtain such insura t not less than $2,000,000 per claim. Notwithstanding the for • •'ng, ommission may consider written requests to lower or dispense with the er •m •ns liability insurance requirement contained in this Section for certai . •consul : is o onsultant, on a case -by -case basis, depending on the nature and sco •f the S ices to be provided by the subconsultant. Approval of such request shall be riti signed by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 30.4 Aircra Liability Insurance. Prior to conducting any Services requiring use of aircraft, Consultant shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained, aircraft liability insurance or equivalent form, with a single limit as shall be required by the Commission. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned aircraft and passengers, and shall name, or be endorsed to name, the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. 30.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (a) General Liability. 359 (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the e ct same coverage. (iv) The additional insured "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek con Caltrans' insurance or self-insurance and shall be endorsements providing the exact same covera rage under the policy shall be uti rom the Commission's or astasb =d as CG 2001 0413, or (b) Automobile Liability. _ o 'automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commissi' 9y, Caltran d their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be cover l insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, I �Tndi R r.. ". ���� oading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consult for the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be p ary i uran► : as respects the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, office e ''. -, _ d agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage e 'of the onsultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or se c- Maintained by the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, oy . and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shal �ni1<<.t be call upon to contribute with it in any way. (c) ; - ers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. (i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (d) All Coverages. 360 (1) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set forth hereunder. (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to con shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it policy shall be provided on a "following form" ba ith provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) (30) days prior written notice o except that the Consultant cancellation of any such po coverage is cancelled or ex deliver renewal certifi to the Commissio expiration. Consult Ilati ired in this Agreement may s insurance. Any umbrella or n a lvision that such coverage for the efit of the Commission Commi on's own insurance or d insured. The umbrella/excess coverage at least as broad as ide the Commission at least thirty of any policy required by this Agreement, ast ten (10) days prior written notice of ment of premium. If any of the required ring the erm of this Agreement, the Consultant shall the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement ays prior to the effective date of cancellation or The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date f this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. 361 (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 30.6 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentins. Any deductibles or self - insured retentions must be declared to and approve•, :' the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self ed retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the (4m :..,'on, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or s- `"nsured -, tions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, em • ees - nd agen or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment r .•s 'and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expense. 30.7 Acce•tabilit of Ins a current A.M. Best's rating no less than satisfactory to the Commission 30.8 Verific original certificates of insuran Agreement on forms for each insuranc coverage on its be by the Commission require complete, certifi is to be placed with insurers with d to do business in California, and Consultant shall furnish Commission with d en•. ements effecting coverage required by this he Commission. The certificates and endorsements ed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind ates and endorsements must be received and approved commences. The Commission reserves the right to ies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 30.9 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this Section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 30.10 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly impact the 362 Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant's insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 31. Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devicF , equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to preven_ ': cidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maint- of all safety measures. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 59 has determined that the Project will contain area shall comply with all of the requirements set fo Vehicle Code. Consultant shall take all reaso operation of its vehicles and the protecti from such vehicles. 32. Additional Work. outside of, the Services to performed pursuant to a se foregoing, the Commissi other than a Cardina change which is "o not be regarded as parties when the Agre Cardinal Change would changes in the materials used, but the size and layout of the building remains the same. Cardinal Changes are not within the authority of this provision to order, and shall be processed by the Commission as "sole source" procurements according to applicable law, including the requirements of FTA Circular 4220.1 D, paragraph 9(f). the Vehi . Code, the Commission ar- open to 11. blic traffic. Consultant ions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the necessary precautions for safe g public from injury and damage tivities that are in addition to, or otherwise rsuant to this Agreement shall only be etween the parties. Notwithstanding the tive Director may make a change to the Agreement, urposes of this Agreement, a Cardinal Change is a the Agreement; in other words, work which should fairly and reasonably within the contemplation of the entered into. An example of a change which is not a ere, in a contract to construct a building there are many (a) In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the Commission's Executive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agreement ("Bilateral Contract Modification"). 363 (b) Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change, without written authorization from the Commission's Executive Director as set forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued and signed by the Commission's Executive Director, Consultant shall not provide such change. 33. Prohibited Interests. 33.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Co ission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 33.2 Consultant Conflict of Interest (a) Consultant shall di relationship with Commission that may ha Agreement, or any ensuing Commission constr current clients who may have a financial st in ensuing Commission construction projec (b) Cons acquire any financial or busi services under this Agreem y finari '_'; a I, business, or other act upon the outcome of this project. Consultant shall also list utcome of this Agreement, or any w. ertifies that it does not now have, nor shall it t would conflict with the performance of (c s► ontract in excess of $25,000 entered into as a result of this Agreement, sh provisions of this Article. Itant hereby certifies that neither Consultant, nor any firm affiliated with Consultan on any construction contract, or on any contract to provide construction inspection for construction project resulting from this contract. An affiliated firm is one, which is subject to the control of the same persons through joint -ownership, or otherwise. (e) Except for subconsultants whose services are limited to providing surveying or materials testing information, no subconsultant who has provided design services in connection with this contract shall be eligible to bid on any construction contract, or on any contract to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this contract. 33.3 Commission Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 364 33.4 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 33.5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. As required in connection with federal funding, the Consultant warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commis :on, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon •,` esulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement w't •ut li:.'';ity pursuant to the terms herein, or at its discretion to deduct from the eement e or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee •mmi :=ion, per .ntage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 33.6 Rebates Kickbac wful Consideration. Consultant warrants that this Agreement was not o ed through rebates kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either • rom • p ° o any Commission employee. For breach or violation of this warr. .m '''=`pion shall have the right in its discretion; to terminate this Agreement w' •ut li- lity; t• •ay only for the value of the work actually performed; or to deduct fro - ' ice; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback o • he -wful consideration. 33.7 ovens ga .t Expenditure of Commission, State or Federal Funds for Lobbyin• belief no state, federa by or on behalf of the Co to influence an officer or e ployee of any state or federal agency; a Member of the State Legislature or United States Congress; an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress; or any employee of a Member of the Legislature or Congress, in connection with the award of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. Itant certifies that to the best of his/ her knowledge and ency appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid t to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting (a) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency; a Member of Congress; an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress; in connection with this Agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit the attached Exhibit "G", Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with the attached instructions. 365 (b) The Consultant's certification provided in this Section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was entered into, and is a prerequisite for entering into this Agreement pursuant to Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code. Failure to comply with the restrictions on expenditures, or the disclosure and certification requirements set forth in Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. (c) The Consultant also agrees by signing this Agreement that he/she shall require that the language set forth in this Section 3.23.5 be included in all Consultant subcontracts which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. 33.8 Employment Adverse to the Commission Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written co r nt, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agree ` -nt. 34. Equal Opportunity Employment. opportunity employer and it shall not discrimin applicant for employment because of race, religio age. Such non-discrimination shall incl - > •ut no initial employment, upgrading, demotion, layoff or termination. 35. Right to Emplo other consultants in connec 36. Gover laws of the State o g Law. lifornia. 37. Disputes; nt repre`<: is that it is an equal any subcontractor, employee or , national origin, ancestry, sex or limited to, all activities related to ent or recruitment advertising, s. Commission reserves the right to employ ement shall be governed by and construed with the nue shall be in Riverside County. ' Fees. 37.1 Prior to commencing any action hereunder, the Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising between them. The pendency of a dispute shall not excuse Consultant from full and timely performance of the Services. 37.2. If the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute after attempting in good faith to do so, the Parties may seek any other available remedy to resolve the dispute. If either Party commences an action against the other Party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 38. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 366 39. Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 40. Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: Dudek 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Susan Smith Such notice shall be deemed made when personally d (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class tage pre Party at its applicable address. Actual notice sh. •e deemed ad actual notice occurred, regardless of the meth • •f s- ,ice. COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor River ''de, CA 92501 Att xecutive Director 41. Conflicting Provisions. In conflict in any way with the provisions set conditions contained in this Agreement s Parties and the interpretation of . r ties' the Services. r when mailed, forty-eight , and addressed to the ate notice on the date ovisions of any attached exhibits ement, the language, terms and he actions and obligations of the derstanding concerning the performance of 42. Amendment or ation. o supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall • • s executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 43. Entire This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to th ..,ubje atter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understa 44. Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 45. Provisions Applicable When State Funds or Federal Funds Are Involved. When funding for the Services under a Task Order is provided by this Agreement are provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the provisions included in Exhibit "D" (Federal Department of Transportation Requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DBE program requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. When funding for the Services under a Task Order is provided, in whole or in part, from the FTA, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the 367 provisions included in Exhibit "F" (FTA Requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference 46. Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 47. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 48. Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compe sation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, ? agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the ces. 49. Counterparts. This Agreement may b- "'gned in nterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 50. Attorney Client Privilege. The Pa ognize that, during the Project, the Commission and its attorneys will engag ; comm► ation that gives rise to an attorney client privilege of confidentiality ("Confid m ation"). Given the nature of the work done by Consultant for the Commis e necessary for the Consultant to participate in Confidential Comm ions. "i the extent that (i) the Consultant is a party to any Confidential Commu tion and `' a third party seeks discovery of such communications, then the C ; ulta . - :seemed to be an agent of the Commission solely for purposes of presery a o y client privilege in the relevant Confidential Communication. Any azi; .,,.,or : ,,.,client privilege shall be held by the Commission and the Consultant is give that privilege or, otherwise, disclose such Confidential Comm ► r;' ation ex•; _.•t as set forth below. This Section is intended to maintain the privilege in any o,:'lege• onfidential Communications that are (1) between and among Commission, Co , and Commission's attorneys; (2) between Consultant (on behalf of the Commission) : 'd Commission's attorneys; (3) Confidential Communications that occur in Closed Session meetings wherein the Commission, the Commission's attorneys and Consultant are present; and (4) between Commission and Consultant wherein the substance of the Confidential Communication is conveyed to/from the Consultant. Consultant may disclose a Confidential Communication to the extent such disclosure is required by legal process, by a court of competent jurisdiction or by any other governmental authority, provided that any such disclosure shall be limited to the specific part of the Confidential Communication required to be disclosed and provided that Consultant first comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph. As soon as practicable after Consultant becomes aware that it is required, or may become required, to disclose the Confidential Communication for such reason, Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing, in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed 368 to limit the Confidential Communication required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the disclosed information following its disclosure. Consultant shall cooperate with the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, to assist the Commission in limiting the scope of disclosure or assuring the confidential treatment of any disclosed information. 51. Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 52. Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 53. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 54. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 55. No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. [Signatures on following page] 369 SIGNATURE PAGE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSITION 1B, FTA AND FHWA FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RIGHT OF WAY PHASE I & PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONSULTA DUDEK By: Anne Mayer Si ture e Approved as to Form: Title By: Best, Best & Krieger L General Counsel ATTEST: By: Its: * A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 370 By: EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF WORK AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The presence of hazardous substances within and adjacent to existing and proposed right of way and facilities for various Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) rail and highway projects or for various Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) real property acquisitions for open space for wildlife and plant life conservation is possible. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission and/or the RCA exercise due diligence in identifying hazardous and potential hazardous substances related problems. For purposes of this work, hazardous substances are substances or combinations of substances as defined in Title 22 California ..,.de of Regulations, Section 66680, Division 20, Health and Safety Code, Section 115 and 25117, or those substances defined in Title 49 Code of Federal Regula .'. Part 171.8. On -Call Consultant will be required to furnish en nmental ineering services, field services including, but not limited to, site a ssm: t and i estigations, remedial investigation/feasibility studies, remediation ac .I remediation action design, post- remediation monitoring at specified areas, hazar•`• waste remediation, abatement and removal of materials. Work will be assi• L a to +rder basis. 1.1 Task Order (TO) Procedur-s for II d Caltrans Funded TOs: 1.1.1 The Commission' : nd/or a RC Representative or designated project manager will issue to an as -needed basis. 1.1.2 REQUE S RDER SUBMITTALS. Upon a request for a TO Proposal sio by the RCA Representative, one or more consultants plan and submit a proposal for the requested services. The T• ; .II incluF a schedule, number of labor hours, labor classification(s), and classi _ i. ates to provide the requested services. 1.1.3 REVIEW AND AWARD OF TASK ORDERS. The Commission's or the RCA's Representative or designated project manager will evaluate the submitted TO Proposal ensuring that the submittal is complete, consistent with the Commission's or the RCA's written or oral request for services, the personnel assigned are acceptable, the schedule is acceptable, that all costs proposed are appropriate, and that the item is in compliance with contractual requirements. If required, the Commission's or the RCA's Representative or designated project manager will conduct negotiations to address exceptions and clarify costs. The fully executed TO will serve as the record of negotiations. 1.1.4 COMPLETION SCHEDULE. The consultant's performance of services shall commence under each TO only upon written authorization by the Commission's or by the RCA's Representative or designated project manager. Exhibit A-1 371 1.1.5 Consultant shall complete the services within the time frame specified on a particular TO. 1.1.6 All work shall be subject to review and approval of the Commission or the RCA either by the Contract Administrator or a designated representative prior to the acceptance and approval of payment. 1.2 Task Order (TO) Procedures for Locally Funded TOs: 1.2.1 Locally funded TOs may be awarded by the designated project manager in the best interest of the Commission or the RCA. TO Proposals are not required for locally funded TOs. 1.3 Phase I — Initial Site Assessment The Initial Site Assessment (ISA) is necessary for iden hazardous problems within and adjacent to existin facilities for the Commission's Measure A or other projects. The ISA shall include all pertinent infor and potential hazardous waste sites in the vici required to review and update prior environmen During the performance of an ISA, the C waste sites and search as necessary av agencies such as, but not limited • Environmental Prote • California Environment • Regional Wate • Office of E Local health Local fire depa County Tax Asses County Court House (maps and files) Utility companies (maps, plans, records) • Caltrans (right-of-way maps, aerial photos and files) • • • • g hazardous and potentially oposed rights -of -way and nspo n projects or the RCA's on regardin ted hazardous waste roject. he Consultant may be its or remediation work. iew published lists of hazardous federal, state, regional and local National Priority List (NPL) reports ection - gency (Cal/EPA) I Board (RWQCB) azardous materials management plans) site lists, permits, reports) e lists, permits, reports) parcel maps and files) The Consultant shall also review Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, aerial photographs and other reports, maps and photographs, as necessary, to determine past and present land uses and to identify known or potential hazardous waste sites on parcels of land for future highway improvement projects. The time frame for this record search shall extend as far back as necessary, or to the limitation of available records, to determine the use and presence of any hazardous wastes/materials on the parcels of land in question. The Consultant shall review published data from the United States Geological Surveys (USGS), state and other available maps and reports in order to compile a general geologic map and general hydrologic profile of the right-of-way or facility. Exhibit A-2 372 As directed, the Consultant shall conduct a field survey for potential hazardous waste sites of all parcels of land within and adjacent to the proposed right-of-way or facility as specified in the Task Order. During this phase, it is not necessary to confirm the actual presence of hazardous waste in soil or groundwater on the site. Coordination and contacts with property owners and/or regulatory agencies shall be pre -approved by the Commission or by the RCA. All of the work for Phase I ISA or Transaction Screen Reports (TSR) will be performed using American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM) 1527 or 1528. In circumstances when an ISA will be performed to obtain right of way for a Caltrans project, the work will be completed using the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual for Environmental Contamination, Chapter 18. The Consultant shall be responsible for all Regulatory Coordination through -out all phases of the Project. General requirements for ISA reports are provi' . in ,.chment 1.4 Phase II — Site Investigation If required, site investigations may include i ited to, items such as work plans, health and safety plans, surveys �, ;• su •eop sical investigations (if necessary), drilling, sampling, laboratory a orting. All elements of the site invest! state and federal regu standards. The inve sampling handling acceptable to the Co et all applicable standards set forth by local, ies. There should be no deviation to the required es (i.e., drilling methods, sampling collection and aly cal methods and equipment) must be procedurally e RCA and regulatory agencies. During soil investigations, drilling and sampling operations shall be supervised on -site by Professional Engineer (PE), Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG), or Registered Geologist (RG). Personnel with specific registration(s) may be required in a Task Order to conform to regulatory agency requirements. 1.4.1 Work Plans A technical work plan shall be developed for all site investigations. The work plan shall be sufficiently detailed to fully describe the work to be performed. The Consultant shall submit a draft site -specific work plan to the Commission's or to the RCA's Project Manager for review. The draft shall be revised based on the Commission's or the RCA's comments and returned within seven (7) working days. The Commission or the RCA shall review and approve the plan prior to start of fieldwork. Exhibit A-3 373 Appropriate professional personnel shall develop work plans. Interpretation of geology, hydrogeologic, and/or hydrologic information shall be completed under the supervision of a California RG and/or CEG. All work performed by the Consultant shall be in accordance with the site -specific final work plan as reviewed and approved by the Commission or by the RCA. 1.4.2 Health and Safety Plans Throughout the performance of field soil investigations, the Consultant, its subcontractors, and their personnel are responsible for their own health and safety planning, monitoring and procedures. All field soil investigations will require development of an ropriate Health and Safety Plan. The Commission or the RCA shall review and app e the plan prior to the start of work. The Consultant shall submit a draft site spec '.> : th and Safety Plan to the Commission or to the RCA for review. The dr ,, shall Y revised based on the Commission's and/or the RCA's comments and r ned to the ultant within seven (7) calendar days. The Health and Safety Plan II c• porm to al applicable regulatory requirements including, but not limited to 8CCR • `" nd 8CCR 3202. The Consultant shall complete all work in The Consultant shall ensure that all empl plan requirements. 1.4.3 Surveys of B The Consultant may b the surveying and contents and conta Typical surveys may the site Health and Safety Plan. on the project site, conform to the ovide survey activities. Survey activities may include le, of buildings, structures, stored materials, tank ine whether hazardous waste or materials are present. ection for the following: • Asbestos containin• aterials (ACM) in buildings and pipelines • Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl's (PCB) containing materials in transformers, equipment, containers • Fuels and other chemicals in tanks, barrels and storage containers • Review of buildings or structures to determine whether hazardous materials are being used or stored • The presence of lead paint Only when requested will a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) be utilized for survey plans and work. Requests for a CIH will be through the Task Order process. When surveys are included in a Task Order, survey activities as well as results shall be included as a report or as part of the Site Investigation Report. Exhibit A-4 374 1.4.4 Surface Geophysical Investigations Consultants shall provide surface geophysical investigative services for the purpose of acquiring data as specified in the Task Order. Surface geophysical work shall be coordinated and interpreted by a geophysicist certified in the state of California. When geophysical activities are included in a Task Order, in addition to the general soil investigation reporting requirements, geophysical activities and results shall be included as a report or as part of the Site Investigation Report. 1.4.5 Soil Gas Survey Consultant shall provide subsurface soil gas sampling and analysis services. Gas survey personnel on site shall include a chemist or other experienced professional responsible for equipment operation and calibration. When soil gas survey activities are included in a Task Order, in addition to the general soil investigation reporting requirements, soil gas survey activities and results shall be included as a report or as part of the Site Investigation '-;.•ort. 1.4.6 Trenching Trenching may be required for shallow soil inv Lion purposes. Excavation may be needed to determine shallow subsurface conditions or to excavate and expose subsurface structures such as foundations, tanks, pipes and/or sumps. Trenching activities shall be observed and supervised by a site engineer, geologist or engineering geologist. 1.4.7 Drilling Consultant shall provide drilling services that have the capability to drill and sample soft or poorly consolidated material, rock of varying densities, hardness, and degrees of fracturing, engineered fill, asphalt, Portland concrete cement (PCC), and wastes. Consultant shall also provide drilling services that have the capability to properly drill, construct, and develop groundwater monitoring wells. Monitoring wells may be required to determine if groundwater contamination is present, the extent of the contamination, and the general characterization of the subsurface vadose and hydro geologic conditions. Monitoring wells shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all the appropriate regulations, requirements and to be able to obtain water samples from the appropriate aquifer zones. The Consultant, prior to drilling and installation of wells, shall obtain all of the necessary well permit(s). The Consultant shall register all monitoring wells with the Department of Water Resources. Copies of these records shall be included in the Site Investigation Report. Exhibit A-5 375 When drilling activities are included in a Task Order, in addition to the general soil investigation reporting requirements, drilling activities and results shall be included as a report or as part of the Site Investigation Report. 1.4.8 Sampling The objective of sampling is to obtain a representative sample of the subsurface soil, vadose and/or water conditions and levels of contamination at the specific site. Sampling intervals shall be site specific and reviewed and approved the Commission, or by the RCA and/or regulatory agencies. When sampling activities are included in a Task Order, in dition to the general soil investigation reporting requirements, sampling activities and re shall be included as a report or as part of the Site Investigation Repor 1.4.9 Laboratory Analysis Laboratory analyses for each parameter will* performed in accordance with EPA protocols established in the EPA document Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW - 846, Update I I I , dated June 1997. Analyses will be performed in accordance with the EPA method procedures unless project requirements necessitate the adoption of alternative methods. Analysis will be performed within the holding times. If an alternative method is used, it will be documented and reported. Laboratories used to perfor heroical analysis shall be certified by the California Department of Health Services HS). Asbestos and lead samples shall be submitted to an American Industrial Hyde Association (AIHA) accredited laboratory. For specific test methods not as yet certified by DHS, the laboratory can perform laboratory analysis only if presently certified by DHS for comparable test methods, e.g., volatile organics, semivolatile organics, etc. or is a currently certified US EPA Contract laboratory. Expected turnaround time for chemical analysis shall be seven (7) calendar days, unless otherwise requested. Analysis shall be performed in accordance with the Contract Laboratory program protocol (CLP). The Consultant shall be responsible for sample transport from worksite to the laboratory, to provide clean or new sample containers, labels, appropriate preservation and chain -of -custody records. Exhibit A-6 376 1.4.9.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality control of laboratory analyses is assessed by performing analytical methods according to protocols and analyzing laboratory QA/QC samples to measure precision and accuracy of laboratory methods and equipment, instrument calibration, and preventive maintenance. 1.4.9.1.1 General Laboratory QA/QC samples that will be analyzed during the proposed assessment include method blanks, laboratory control samples, MSs, and duplicates. Specific acceptance limits for the samples will be per the respective analytical method and at the discretion of the laboratory QA/QC manager. 1.4.9.1.2 Method Blanks A method blank is a sample of deionized water or clean sand prepared by and analyzed by the laboratory in the same manner as the samples. It is used to assess potential contamination in the laboratory process (e.g., contaminated reagents or improperly cleaned equipment). The laboratory will analyze ,one method 141,ank sample per batch or every 20 samples for each analytical method. p 1.4.9.1.3 Laboratdry Co Samples A laboratory control sample is a known matrix (e.g., deionized water) that has been spiked with a known concentration of specific target analytes. It is used to demonstrate the precision of the analytical process. A laboratory control sample will be analyzed at a frequency of one per preparation or analytical batch not to exceed 20 samples. 1.4.9.1.4 Matrix Spikes The MS is an actual sample matrix spiked with known concentrations of specific target analytes. The purpose of an MS is to access the effect of a sample matrix on the recovery of target analytes (i.e., assess the potential for matrix interferences, either high or low). One MS will be analyzed per batch or every 20 samples for each analytical method. 1.4.9.1.5 Laboratory Duplicates Duplicate samples are used to assess precision in the analytical method. An additional aliquot is extracted from a sample and analyzed using the procedures. Then the results are compared to assess the precision. Duplicates may be of three kinds — laboratory control sample duplicates, MS duplicates, and laboratory sample duplicates. Duplicates should be analyzed per batch or every 20 samples for each analytical sample. Exhibit A-7 377 1.4.10 Laboratory Reports Complete copies of the laboratory reports, including QA/QC summary reports shall be placed in an appendix of the Site Assessment Report. Laboratory reports shall contain, but not limited to, the following information: • Written explanation of higher detection limits, laboratory contaminants, or other unusual results. • Name, address, and telephone number of laboratory • Laboratory number for each sample reported • Consultant's number for each sample recorded • Date sample(s) collected • Date sample(s) received by laboratory • Date of laboratory testing • Brief sample description (e.g. soil, water, slud • Specific test method • Extraction method utilized • Test result for each sample and metho • Detection limit for each test method • Date of test report • Signature and title of the manager 1.4.11 General requirements for Sit ports are provided in Attachment II 1.5 Remedial Inves on/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) cl<<e appropriate laboratory section A comprehensive Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) will be perform to develop sufficient information to make an informed remedial alternative selection that eliminates, reduces, and/or controls the risks to human health and the environment. All elements of the RI/FS Work Plan shall conform to applicable federal, state and local guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria negotiated with appropriate regulatory agencies. Appropriate professional personnel shall develop RI/FS Work Plans. Interpretation of geology, hydrogeology, and/or hydrology information shall be conducted under the supervision of a California Registered Geologist or Certified Engineering Geologist. At the conclusion of the RI/FS, a RI/FS Report shall be prepared to include at a minimum, site characteristics, sources of contaminants, nature and extent of contamination, risk assessment, and review of all potentially feasible remedial actions and associated costs. A Risk Assessment, included as part of the RI/FS work, may be necessary to determine the risk to human health and the environment from contaminants in the soil and/or groundwater. The Risk Assessment shall describe the environmental fate and transport of the contaminants and consider all potential contaminant migration pathways in addition to Exhibit A-8 378 all potential exposure routes to a receptor such as inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption. The Risk Assessment must provide a comparison of the contaminant concentration at a receptor (estimated by the fate and transport element) with appropriate health -based standards. If the contaminant concentration at the receptor exceeds the appropriate health -based standards, then a potential unacceptable excess risk to the receptor exists and a risk management decision must be made (e.g. removal, treatment, stabilization, etc.). The Risk Assessment must include a professional conclusion that is presented in an objective and technically defensible manner. The Risk Assessment must include a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the assessment by describing uncertainties, explicitly stating assumptions and limitations, as well as providing scientific basis and rationale for each assumption. Conclusions regarding the potential risk to human health and/or the environment must be based on current federal, state and local guidelines, rules, regulations, and requirements. General requirements for RI/FS reports are provided in Attachment III. 1.6 Remedial Action Plan and Remedial Action Design The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) shall compile and summarize site data gathered during the RI/FS, in order to identify, and subsequently design, plan, and implement a final remedial action for the specific site. The RAP shall clearly and concisely describe the selected and rejected alternatives to the extent that the Commission or the RCA is provided an opportunity to comment on the remedial action(s). The RAP must also set forth specific remedial action objectives; rough order of magnitude cost estimates, and timeframes for completion of the remedial action(s). The Consultant shall submit a draft RAP, potentially including a closure plan, to the appropriate regulatory agencies and the Commission or the RCA for review and approval prior to circulation for public/responsible party input and prior to being adopted as the final document for undertaking remedial action at the specific site. A Remedial Action Design (RAD) shall be developed to provide technical and operational plans and engineering designs for implementation of the approved final RAP. Based on the selected alternative for remedial action as defined in the RAP, the Consultant shall develop a RAD in accordance with regulatory requirements, which shall include detailed construction designs for the selected remedial alternative. In addition, the work plan shall include sampling protocol for screening and verification sampling, onsite and off -site transportation routes, health and safety requirements for post construction activities. A schedule shall be developed for implementing the construction phase of the remedial action. Exhibit A-9 379 1.7 Remediation Oversight Consultant may provide remediation oversight to monitor and control the adherence to the Remedial Action Design (RAD), and to ensure that the work is completed in a timely and competent manner. 2.0 Other Requirements 2.1 Reports — Progress and Investigative The Consultant shall submit to the Commission or to the RCA monthly progress reports to report status, difficulties or special problems encountered so that remedies can be developed. Included in the progress report Consultant shall report on costs expended per Task Order and schedule status for current Task Orders. At Unless otherwise stipulated, one (1) electronic copy of tke draft workplan, health and safety plan, and site investigation report must be submitted to the Commission's or to the RCA's Project Manager for approval. Work plans and investigation reports must be revised to address all comments, prior to being submitted in final form within the time specified in the Task Order. One (1) electronic copy of the final work plan and health and safety plan and one (1) electronic copy of the final investigation report must be submitted to the Commission's or to the RCA's Project Manager unless another quantity is specified. 2.2 Deliverable Approval and Correction Procedures All data and documents produced by the Consultant shall be subject to acceptance by regulatory agencies and t� Fission or the RCA. In the event of non - Consultant shall ha the RCA. 2.3 Timing eptance by regulatory agencies or the Commission or the RCA, the 4 calendar days to submit the corrections to the Commission or to Time is of the essence and time for performance may be a factor in issuance of a Task Order. 2.4 Meeting The Consultant shall meet with a Commission or a RCA representative at a designated pre - work site visit to view the site and discuss Task Order execution. The Consultant shall provide a person at the pre -work site visit that will exercise responsible charge of the anticipated Task Order. The Consultant shall meet with the Commission's or the RCA's designee, as needed, to discuss progress on the contract. Exhibit A-10 380 2.5 Monitoring and Review Procedures The Commission or the RCA shall have the right to monitor and review the processes of the Consultant at any time by visiting the Consultant's facility or by requiring meetings. 3.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 3.1 Health and Safety Consultant shall at all times conduct its operations in such a manner as to avoid any risk of bodily harm to persons or damage to property. Consultant shall promptly take all precautions that are reasonable or necessary to safeguar. ..gainst such risk and shall make regular safety inspections of its operations. Consult ..f;'; hall be solely responsible for the discovery, determination and correction of any uns w 'ditions arising in connection with the performance of services by Consultant. In addition, Consultant shall comply with all ap codes, rules, regulations, including any safet California and the U.S. Government as applicab equipment and facilities; whether temp connection with the performance of se cooperate and coordinate with the safety matters. By its action of providing subcontractors and the' have been trained ac 5192. In additio performed on this pr alth an afety laws, standards, ms established by the State of Consultant warrants the materials, ent, furnished by Consultant in ply therewith. Consultant shall RCA and with other consultants on tant confirms that all of its employees, s, engage in field activities related to this agreement uirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR nt hall include this requirement in all subcontracts At the time any of Consu . s personnel are required to visit any work site, Consultant shall furnish suitable safety equipment and enforce the use of such equipment by those personnel. Consultant's personnel who visit any of the Work Sites on a regular basis shall have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the safety requirements. Samples suspected of containing asbestos and/or lead shall be collected by personnel certified by the State of California to collect such samples. The Site Health and Safety Plan shall be developed by an industrial hygienist with sufficient knowledge to recognize and characterize the potential site hazards. During soil investigation activities, a Site Safety Officer (SSO) with be designated and will be responsible for enforcing the site safety plan. Upon the Commission's or the RCA's request, the site Health and Safety Plan will be signed by a Certified Industrial hygienist. Exhibit A-11 381 A copy of the Health and Safety Plan shall be distributed to all workers before the field investigation begins. All field investigation workers shall certify that they have read, understand, and agree to comply with the site Health and Safety Plan before the field investigation begins. The Consultant shall provide safe access to the Work Site for representatives of the applicable local and/or state regulatory agencies during normal field investigations work hours. Designated observation areas outside the work zone shall be established for these site visits. Such inspection tours shall be arranged in advance with the SSO. The SSO shall accompany the representatives while on the site. On Commission owned facilities or RCA owned real property, Consultant shall advise the Project Manager when safety meetings are to be held. Consultant shall report to the Commission or to the RC by its personnel at any Work Site. Any of the consulta the RCA determines do not have the requisite .w Commission or the RCA, be removed from the unsafe conditions observed pers '' el that the Commission or ledge s at the option of the ce of se ` ice. The Consultant shall require the full compliance this clause by all subcontractors of Consultant. 3.2 Site Safety Officer The Consultant shall desig investigation. A SSO or his d site under active investi and regulations in C representative sh representative of the Officer (SSO) for each site under active entative shall be present at all times at each persons must be familiar with hazardous waste laws al/OSHA requirements. The SSO or his designated to accompany the Commission or the RCA and/or gulatory agencies while they are on site. The SSO shall direct the i mentation and operation of the Health and Safety Plan. The SSO shall enforce compliance with the Health and Safety Plan by all persons while they are within the site perimeter. 3.3 Owner/Regulatory Contacts The Consultant shall only contact property owners as specifically directed and authorized by the Commission or the RCA. The Consultant shall coordinate with other agencies, such as federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), local environmental health agency, and others as necessary to complete fieldwork. The Consultant shall notify and invite the Commission's or the RCA's representative to all regulatory agency meetings related to this investigation. Exhibit A-12 382 3.4 Right -of -Entry The conditions of the right of entry agreement to the property will be explained to the Consultant during the pre -work site meeting. The Consultant shall know and follow the terms and conditions of the right of entry agreement at all times. 3.5 Permits and Licenses Consultant shall be fully responsible for identifying and obtaining all necessary permits required for performing the services under this agreement. Consultant acknowledges that it has familiarized itself with the existing requirements of the Commission and all applicable federal, state, county and municipal laws, codes, rules, and r �ulations and the conditions of any required licenses and permits as they were in effect the date of this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all the foregoing, and ex d11 > otherwise provided herein, Consultant shall procure all licenses and registrations - . sh:'' " r_.rnish any bonds, security, or deposits required to conduct business without _ increase he Task Order cost or schedule on account of such compliance, reg -ss o hether ch compliance would require additional labor, equipment, or mate expressly provided for in this Agreement. 3.6 Underground Services Alert (U Before any Task Order involvi :' 1 '; rba . y>- of the ground beyond surface sampling begins, the Consultant shall ain a inqui identification number from USA. 3.7 Traffic Control Traffic control (bar accomplish the cont coordinate and obtain shall be addressed in the le '' shing beacons, and detours), when necessary to be the responsibility of Consultant. The Consultant shall essary permits from the local jurisdiction. Traffic control th and Safety Plan. 3.8 Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements The Consultant shall preserve and protect all structures, equipment, and vegetation (such as trees, shrubs, and grass) on or adjacent to the work site, which are not to be removed and which do not unreasonably interfere with the work required under this Agreement. The Consultant shall protect from damage all existing improvements and utilities (1) at or near the work site, and (2) on adjacent property of a third party, the locations of which are made known to or should be known by the Consultant. The Consultant shall repair any damage, at its own cost or expense, to those facilities, including those that are the property of a third party, resulting from failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement or Exhibit A-13 383 failure to exercise reasonable care in performing the work. If the consultant fails or refuses to repair the damage promptly, the Commission or the RCA may have the necessary work performed and charge the cost to the Consultant. 3.9 Project Diary A Project Diary must be maintained to support all work performed. The diary must be filled out and signed as to be true and correct. It must identify the person responsible for project management and must include, but not be limited to, additional notations, observations or remarks to further clarify work. 3.10 Decontamination/Disposal If required, all personnel shall be decontaminated before le Site Health and Safety Plan. Decontamination proce guidelines found in 8 CCR 5192 and shall be detailed Consultant shall equip, supply and maintain an drilling, installation and sampling equipment. the capacity to contain all decontamination fluids Consultant shall collect these fluids in a• • •riate Consultant shall wash and clean all equip includes drilling machines, pipe material brought on site. Befor site, all equipment shall be g the site as specified in the shall generally follow the to Health and Safety Plan. =site decon ` !; ,'nation station for the hall ensure that this station has in the decontamination procedure. ainers. initiation of work at the site. This , pumps, casings, screens and any other quipment at another drilling location at the aminated. General requirements +n ation include, but not limited to: • Auge samplin • Before eac mixture of liq y other tools used in drilling operations, monitoring and eam cleaned before initial use and between boreholes. ,'sampling tubes, liners, and bailers shall be washed in a ox, or similar product, and clear water, rinsed in clear water, rinsed in distilled water and air dried. • All suspect asbestos containing materials and lead paint materials shall be handled wet. The Consultant shall avoid contamination of the project area and shall not dump waste oil, drilling fluids, rubbish and/or other materials on the ground. All equipment, unused materials, temporary facilities and other miscellaneous items resulting from or used in the operation shall be removed from the site. Material removed from trenches, drill holes, etc. shall be properly collected in containers or stockpiled on plastic sheeting supplied by the Consultant. The project site must be maintained clean at all times. Exhibit A-14 384 3.11 Hazardous Waste Manifest The Commission or the RCA will sign all Hazardous and Non -Hazardous Waste Manifests for waste removed from the site. 3.12 Regulatory Requirements Consultant agrees that it will not store any hazardous substances at the job site for periods in excess of ninety (90) days or in violation of the applicable site storage limitations imposed by law, the Owner, the Commission, the RCA, whichever will be more restrictive. Consultant further agrees that it will not permit any accumulation in excess of the small quantity generator exclusion of 40 CFR Part 261 or other applicable law, as amended. Consultant agrees to report to the appropriate governmental agencies all discharges, releases, and spills of hazardous substances and/or wastes required to be reported by law and to immediately notify the Commission or RCA Representative of same. 3.13 Expert Testimony It shall be recognized that subsequent to the performance of this Agreement the need may arise to provide expert testimony during hearings and/or court proceedings involving site specific activities or other matters, with regard to which personnel provided by the Consultant under this Agreement (including subcontractor personnel) would have gained expertise as a result of the Tasks performed under this Agreement. Therefore the Consultant agrees to make available expert consulting services in support of future proceedings, including litigation support and to enter into any intent agreement as necessary with subcontractors to ensure the availability of subcontractor personnel provided under this Agreement to provide expert consulting services. Agreement to provide such services in the future serves as a notice of intent only. Should the Consultant or any subcontractors at any tier ever testify in court in any case related to this Agreement, all his/her work will be considered proprietary to the Commission or to the RCA. In such a case, the Consultant and/or subcontractor of any tier shall not release any information to adverse parties. 3.14 Disclosure of Information The Consultant agrees to notify and obtain the written approval of the Commission or the RCA prior to releasing any information to any third parties including the news media regarding any work under this Agreement except as required by law. The Consultant shall immediately notify the Commission or the RCA of the receipt of a demand by a third party for the disclosure of field test data generated under this Agreement. This requirement shall apply to all subcontractors. Exhibit A-15 385 ATTAbil<I<L. INITI � �3 = EWMENT REPORT Exhibit A-16 386 INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Contents of the Initial Site Assessment Report should include, but not limited to the following: 1. Title sheet, which identifies the Task Order number, project name, project location, contract number, Consultant name, name of author, and date. 2. Signature page with signature and title of persons who prepared and reviewed the project. 3. Table of Contents. 4. Investigative (Executive) Summary: This section + present and summarize the technical data and findings of the investigatio 5. Investigation narrative, which shall inclu t limited "'•, the following: • Investigation methods and -valuatio` iteria. • Known hazardous substa (na location, contamination onsite, federal or state, impact, sch up, etc.). • Potential hazardou •stan :- .. tes in the vicinity of the ISA site (name, location, type of • ra y , re:r�_+n to suspect potential are of impact, etc.). • Name, addres : nd te • • e ber of the business/owner(s) of each site. • Type of hazardo,h . s a nd/or containers involved at each site (e.g. sludge p �,•s, derground/above ground storage tanks, piping, etc.) This d ''shall . ; n r in a clear and concise form, and summarized in a table • Chemic s materials that have been stored/used in the past at each site - nown generators (if available) of the materials. • Permits, viola • ns, plans, records, and any other information reviewed. • Sketches, photographs, and/or descriptive comments as necessary to identify important features such as buildings, ponds, utility lines, etc. • Aquifer descriptions, (depths to groundwater, gradient, conductivity, yield, quality, and beneficial users). Public sources such as the Department of Water Resources reports and USGS reports will be sources of this type of information. • Geologic units: Geologic and hydrologic information should be scaled to the freeway/rail project. The shallow subsurface conditions (e.g. less than 50 feet below ground surface) will have the greatest impact on construction. • Location and use of all known groundwater and monitoring wells in the subject vicinity of the study area. • All known or potential hazardous substance sites shall be identified with corresponding symbols and physical features such as geologic units, aquifer Exhibit A-17 387 descriptions, and depth to groundwater on a project right-of-way map included in the ISA Report. • How project may affect suspect sites (e.g. area of contamination vs. construction excavation). • A list of sites recommended for site investigations shall be included, along with recommendations for follow-up investigations. These sites shall be ranked by significance using a rationale fully justified in the report and prioritized for scheduling this follow-up work. • Degree of significance for each hazardous substance problem in terms of time to mitigate and approximate costs. • Describe future plans, if any, of the EPA, Cal -EPA, RWQCB, or other agencies involved in remediating hazardous substance sites within or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way. • Identify individuals or agencies contacted eveloping the information included in the ISA Report. • List of contact names, telephone nu information reviewed. • Limitations in the adequacy and/or clusions re shall be explained in detailed. <e*' d dates contacted, and d in this assessment Exhibit A-18 388 <1 ATT T •H II TIG ION REPORT Exhibit A-19 389 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The report shall be typed and bound in an 8 1/2" by 11' size. Contents of the Site Investigation Report should include, but not limited to the following: 1. Title sheet, which identifies the contract number, Task Order number, project name, project location, Consultant name and date. 2. Signature page to include signature and title of persons who prepared and reviewed the report. 3. Table of Contents. 4. Investigative Summary: This section should pr f4le r, d summarize the technical data and findings of the investigation. 5. Introduction: At a minimum, this section . •uld lude: • Site Description • Surrounding Properties • Site History • Environmental Sett ➢ Regional ➢ Site Ge • Purpose and Sc 6. Site Investig. Pro r This section should provide a work plan and field work metho• sed fort investigation and should include, at a minimum: • Soil Bonin• •ns • Atmospheric onitoring • Borehole Drilling, Sampling and Backfilling • Field Screening • Equipment Decontamination • Chemical Analyses Program 7. Site Investigation Results: This section should provide an evaluation of soil investigation results and should include, at a minimum: • Maps to scale showing the site location, feature locations, boring and well locations, vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, contour maps of contaminant concentrations, and hydraulic gradient. • Cross -sections showing subsurface geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, sample results, and estimated extent of contamination. An estimate of Exhibit A-20 390 volume of contaminated soil and groundwater present must be given along with assumptions and calculations used. • Statistical analysis of sample results estimating distribution and average concentration, and statistical analysis that demonstrate trends in contaminant level and distribution. • Backup data for maps, cross sections, and graphs. • Summary of laboratory results. 8. Conclusions and Recommendations: This section should include, at a minimum: • Nature, extend, and estimated volume of contamination. • Recommendations for additional work necessary to characterize the site and potential cost. 9. Appendices: All data used to support the report 1 - • ing, but not limited to: • Well and boring logs for both existing - • new Is and borings (include all wells that can influence hydrogeol•,,, conditions of the site). • Copies of all permits (e.g. drilling permits, well permits, excavation/grading permits, etc.) obtained from state, county and/or local regulatory agencies. • Laboratory analysis of each sample tested. Laboratory reports must include Chain -of -Custody forms. • Survey elevations and location of wells or borings, benchmark, or monument locations. 10. References Exhibit A-21 391 ATTA REMEDIAL INVES T N/ ASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Exhibit A-22 392 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The report shall be typed and bound in an 8 1/2" by 11' size. Contents of the Site Investigation Report should include, but not limited to the following: 1. Title sheet, which identifies the Contract number, Task Order number, project name, project location, Consultant name and date. 2. Signature page to include signature and title of persons who prepared and reviewed the report. 3. Table of Contents. 4. Introduction: At a minimum, this section sh,i-;°'. include, not limited to: • Site Description • Surrounding Properties • Site History • Environmental Setting ➢ Regional Geology 4 ➢ Site Geology and Hydrogeology • Purpose and Scope of Work w 5. Study Area Investigation: This section should include, at a minimum: • Surfa eatures (topographic mapping, natural and manmade features, etc.) • Contain"' t source investigation • Meteorological investigations • Surface water and sediment investigations • Soil and vadose zone investigations • Groundwater investigations 6. Physical Characteristics of Study Area: This section at a minimum should include field activity results, which then determine physical characteristics including: • Surface features • Geology • Hydrogeology • Soils • Demography and land use Exhibit A-23 393 11. Development and Scree minimum: 7. Nature and Extent of Contamination: This section should present results of soil characterization, both natural chemical components and contaminants in media and transport. 8. Fate and Transport should include, at a minimum: • Potential routes of migration • Contaminant persistence • Contaminant migration 9. Risk assessment should include, at a minimum: • Human health evaluation • Environmental evaluation 10. Identification and screening Technologies: T tion should include, at a minimum: • Remedial Action Objectives • General Response Actions • Identification of appropriate and effectl echnologies for remediation of soil and/or groundwater contaminationatthe site Air f Alfern Lives: This section should include, at a 4 • Assembly of technol&ies into emedial alternatives capable of addressing all media/volumes/areas of contamination which are of concern • Discussion of rationale for combination of technologies/media into alternatives • Discuss screening/evaluating of alternatives • Screen alternatives on the basis of effectiveness, implementation, and cost • Discuss feasibility to implement alternatives given the site conditions, location, and time frame • Discussion of effectiveness of the treatment on the material in question • Discuss the reliability of the alternatives in terms of demonstrated effectiveness and the operation and maintenance requirements 12. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives: This section should include an analysis of the "No Action" alternative and at least two other remedial alternatives. Each alternate analysis should address: time, operation and maintenance requirements, risks to health and environment, cost-effectiveness, level of cleanup, potential economic impact on the responsible party, the physical limitations of the site, controlling regulations and permits, public health concerns, direct and indirect capital costs, and the impact of the cleanup methods on the continuing site activities, future construction activities and Commission or RCA use of the property. Exhibit A-24 394 13. Summary and Conclusions • Summary • Recommendations 14. Recommended Remedial Alternative: Based on the results of the detailed analysis, this section should contain a detailed discussion of the recommended remedial alternative including the basis for this recommendation. 15. References 16. Appendices Exhibit A-25 395 EXHIBIT "B" SAMPLE TASK ORDER FORM Task Order No. Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above: List funding sources: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $ . .00 Completion Date: , 2011/71 The undersigned consultant hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in ac dance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: Dated: By: By: Exhibit B-1 396 EXHIBIT "C"- COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Exhibit C-1 397 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION SUMMARY' FIRM PROJECT TASKS/ROLE COST Prime Consultant: Dudek Environmental Site Assessment $ 350,000.00 Sub Consultants: Aurora Industrial Hygiene Industrial Hygiene and Lead/Asbestps Remediation TBD Belshire Waste Disposal TBD BC2 Environmental Drilling TBD Calvada Surveying, Inc. Utility Clearance Services TBD Environmental Health Decisions Environmental Health Assissments/Toxicologist TBD Eurofins CalScience LLC Analystical Lab Testing TBD GEOVision Geophysical Surveying TBD Habitat Restoration Sciences, Inc. Excavation Remediation, Demolition, Direct Push TBD Jones Environmental Analystical Lab Testing TBD Millennium Environmental Inc. Direct Push Drilling TBD RCS Safety Traffic Control TBD ULS Utility Clearance Ser ' TBD TOTAL COSTS $ 350,000.00 1 Commission authorization pertains to total contract award pensation adjustments between consultants may occur; however, the maximum total compensation authorized may not bee eeded. 398 EXHIBIT "0" FHWA/ CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS 1. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE. A. Consultant's signature affixed herein shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that CONSULTANT has, unless exempt, complied with, the nondiscrimination program requirements of Government Code Section 12990 and Title 2, California Administrative Code, Section 8103. B. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant and its subconsultants shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against :•y employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religio disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, m (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care I shall insure that the evaluation and treatment employment are free from such discrimin subconsultants shall comply with the provisions (Gov. Code §12990 (a -f) et seq.) and the applicab (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, ' s 728 of the Fair Employment and Housing Com 12990 (a -f), set forth in Chapter of Regulations, are incorporated i if set forth in full. Consulta obligations under this claus bargaining or other Agr C. If this Agre relative to Title VI (n Transportation — Title 4 the 1964 Civil Rights Act implement and maintain a policy of nondiscrimination in which no person in the state of California shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or subject to discrimination under any program or activity by the recipients of federal assistance or their assignees and successors in interest. eed, national origin, physical condition (e.g., cancer), age . Co °a,_Itant and subconsultants eir emp`v---es and applicants for harass ent. Consultant and air Employment and Housing Act gulations promulgated there under seq.). The applicable regulations enting Government Code Section 4 •'' Title 2 of the California Code of ent by reference and made a part hereof as ultants shall give written notice of their zations with which they have a collective Ily nded, the Consultant shall comply with regulations ion in federally -assisted programs of the Department of Federal Regulations, Part 21 - Effectuation of Title VI of e VI provides that the recipients of federal assistance will D. If this Agreement is federally funded, the Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement shall act in accordance with Title VI. Specifically, the Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability in the selection and retention of Subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the U.S. DOT's Regulations, Exhibit D-1 399 including employment practices when the Agreement covers a program whose goal is employment. 2. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION CONSULTANT's signature affixed herein, shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that CONSULTANT has complied with Title 2 CFR, Part 180, "OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government wide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement)", which certifies that he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager, is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any federal agency; has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded, or determined ineligible by any federal agency within the past three (3) years; does not have a proposed debarment pending; and has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past three (3) years. Any exceptions to this certification must be disclosed to COMMISSION. B. Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of recommendation for award, but will be considered in determining CONSULTANT responsibility. Disclosures must indicate to whom exceptions apply, initiating agency, and dates of action. C. Exceptions to the Federal Government Excluded Parties List System maintained by the General Services Administratio re to be determined by the Federal highway Administration. 3. DISCRIMINATION The Commission shall not di ' inate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of ny DOT -assisted contract or in the implementation of the Caltrans DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Commission shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Consultant or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, of sex in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant or subcontractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 and the Caltrans DBE program in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts, as further set forth below. Failure by the Consultant or subcontractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy, as the Commission deems appropriate. 4. PROMPT PAYMENT Consultant agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the Exhibit D-2 400 prime contractor receives from the Commission. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the Commission. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 5. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE No retainage will be withheld by the Agency from progress payments due the prime consultant. Retainage by the prime consultant or subconsultants is prohibited, and no retainage will be held by the prime consultant from progress due subconsultants. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating prime consultant or subconsultants to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, other:;ise available to the prime consultant or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involv by the prime consultant or deficient subconsultant pe subconsultant. This provision applies to both DBE subconsultants. 6. LEGAL REMEDIES In addition to those contract remedies se either Party to this Agreement may, wher this Agreement pursuant to the r- nt p relevant federal or state statut relevant federal and state pr well as any and all other app ate payment or nonpayment ce, or noncompliance by a none' -'E prime consultants and vant provisions of California law, ek legal redress for violations of ons . 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26, to the overning civil rights violations, and to the false claims or "whistleblower" actions, as d state provisions of law. The Consultant shal • - •r• on to this effect in each of its agreements with its subcontractors. 7. DBE PARTICIP Caltrans has developed a statewide DBE program pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 26. The requirements and procedures, as applicable, of the Caltrans DBE program are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Even if no DBE participation will be reported, Consultant shall complete Exhibits "E" of this Agreement in compliance with the Caltrans DBE program, a final utilization report in the form provided by the Commission, and any other Caltrans required DBE forms. A. This Agreement is subject to Title 49, Part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations entitled "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs." By obtaining DBE participation on this Agreement, Consultant will assist Caltrans in meeting its federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. Exhibit D-3 401 B. This Agreement does not have a DBE goal, but DBE goals may be included with each task order request for proposals. If a DBE subconsultant is unable to perform, the Consultant must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another DBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met. A DBE is a firm meeting the definition of a DBE as specified in 49 CFR. C. DBE and other small businesses (SB), as defined in Title 49 CFR, Part 26 are encouraged to participate in the performance of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds. The Consultant, subrecipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of US DOT- assisted agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy as the Commission, Caltrans or the Department of Transportation deems appropriate. D. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all of the provisions of this section. E. A DBE may be terminated only with prior written approval from the Commission and only for the reasons specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). Prior to requesting Commission consent for the termination, the prime consultant must meet the procedural requirements specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). 8. DBE PARTICIPATION GENERAL INFORMATION It is Consultant's responsibility to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26, and the Caltrans DBE program. Particular attention is directed to the following: A. A DBE must be a small business firm defined pursuant to 13 CFR 121 and be certified through the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP). B. A certified DBE may participate as a prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner, as a vendor of material or supplies, or as a trucking company. C. A DBE joint -venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work or clearly defined portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing and supervising the work with its own forces. The DBE joint venture partner must share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits of the joint -venture commensurate with its ownership interest. D. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function, pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55 that is, must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing and supervising the work, as more fully described in section 8 below. Exhibit D-4 402 E. The Consultant shall list only one subcontractor for each portion of work as defined in the Consultant's bid/proposal and all DBE subcontractors should be listed in the Consultant's bid/cost proposal list of subcontractors. F. A Consultant who is a certified DBE is eligible to claim all of the work in the Agreement toward the DBE participation except that portion of the work to be performed by non -DBE subcontractors. 9 . COMMERCIALLY USEFUL FUNCTION A. A DBE performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for execution of the work of the Agreement and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a commercially useful function, the DBE must also be responsible with respect to materi.,:: and supplies used on the Agreement, for negotiating price, determining quality and:: antity, ordering the material, and installing (where applicable) and paying for the mat , 1, elf. To determine whether a DBE is performing a commercially useful functi� eva e the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices; whether the aR ` nt the fir to be paid under the Agreement is commensurate with the work it F ctua perform g, and other relevant factors. B. A DBE does not perform a comm an extra participant in a transaction, Agre in order to obtain the appearance • I BE such an extra participant, exam! ' r tra not participate. C. If a DBE does no total cost of its Agre portion of the wor industry practice for commercially useful fu ction if its role is limited to that of e t through which funds are passed pat! •' . In determining whether a DBE is actions, particularly those in which DBEs do exercise responsibility for at least thirty percent of the n work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater me than would be expected on the basis of normal rk involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a 10. DBE CERTIFICATION AND DE -CERTIFICATION STATUS If a DBE subcontractor is decertified during the life of the Agreement, the decertified subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of de -certification. If a subcontractor becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Agreement, the subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to the Commission's Contract Administrator within 30 days. 11. DBE RECORDS A. The Contractor shall maintain records of materials purchased and/or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each Exhibit D-5 403 DBE or vendor, regardless of tier. The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE prime Contractors shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work. B. Upon completion of the Agreement, a summary of these records shall be prepared and submitted on the most current version of the form entitled, "Final Report -Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)," GEM- 2402F (Exhibit 17-F in Chapter 17 of the LAPM), certified correct by the Contractor or the Contractor's authorized representative and shall be furnished to the Commission's Contract Administrator with the final invoice. Failure to provide the summary of DBE payments with the final invoice will result in twenty- five percent (25%) of the dollar value of the invoice being withheld from payment until the form is submitted. The amount will be returned to the Contractor when a satisfactory "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)" is submitted to the Commission's Contract Administrator. a. Prior to the fifteenth of each month, the Contracto Commission's Contract Administrator showing companies. The Contractor shall also obtai Commission's Contract Administrator showing t to all firms, including owner -operators, for the I from a non -DBE, the Contractor may count only the a result of the lease arrangement. b. The Contractor shall also documentation showing the tru number, and if applicable, t used during that month. This DBE Trucking Verific Commission's Contr 12. REPORTING When Reporting DBE Pa as follows: submit documentation to the am. ii' . paid to DBE trucking subm . . ocumentation to the paid by ►' E trucking companies trucks. If the DBE leases trucks or commission the DBE receives as bmit ` Y e C•' mission's Contract Administrator er, . e of owner, California Highway Patrol CA ifica ` number of the truck owner for all trucks hall be submitted on the Caltrans "Monthly -2404(F) form provided to the Contractor by the OR SUPPLIES PURCHASED FROM DBEs tion, Material or Supplies purchased from DBEs may count A. If the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer, 100 % of the cost of the materials or supplies will count toward the DBE participation. A DBE manufacturer is a firm that operates or maintains a factory or establishment that produces on the premises, the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the Agreement and of the general character described by the specifications. B. If the materials or supplies purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 % of the cost of the materials or supplies toward DBE goals. A DBE regular dealer is a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the Agreement, are bought, kept in stock, and regularly Exhibit D-6 404 sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a DBE regular dealer, the firm must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a DBE regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone or asphalt without owning, operating or maintaining a place of business provided in this section. C. If the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products, any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment, shall be by a long-term lease agreement and not an ad hoc or Agreement -by -Agreement basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not DBE regular dealers within the meaning of this section. D. Materials or supplies purchased from a DBE, which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, will be limited to the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on the job site, provided the fees are reasonable and not excessive as compared vy fees charged for similar services. 13. REPORTING PARTICIPATION OF DB2%EtIJ/KING COMPANIES When Reporting DBE Participation, Parti follows: rucking companies may count as A. The DBE must be responsible for the management and supervision of the entire trucking operation for which j s responsible. B. The DBE must operational truck us nd operate at least one fully licensed, insure, and ent. C. The DBE rece r s credit r the total value of the transportation services it provides on the Agreement using c owns, insures, and operates using drivers it employs. D. The DBE may lease trucks from another DBE firm including an owner -operator who is certified as a DBE. The DBE who leases trucks from another DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services the lessee DBE provides on the Agreement. E. The DBE may also lease trucks from a non -DBE firm, including an owner -operator. The DBE who leases trucks from a non -DBE is entitled to credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. The DBE does not receive credit for the total value of the transportation services provided by the lessee, since these services are not provided by the DBE. F. For the purposes of this section, a lease must indicate that the DBE has exclusive use and control over the truck. This does not preclude the leased truck from working for others during the term of the lease with the consent of the DBE, as long as the lease gives Exhibit D-7 405 the DBE absolute priority for use of the leased truck. Leased trucks must display the name and identification number of the DBE. 14. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION In accordance with 49 CFR Part 29, which by this reference is incorporated herein, Consultant's subconsultants completed and submitted the Certificate of subconsultant Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion as part of the Consultant's proposal. If it is later determined that Consultant's subconsultants knowingly rendered an erroneous Certificate, the Commission may, among other remedies, terminate this Agreement. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE A. Compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). (Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of $100,000). B. Mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan iss - compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Sta 16. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10296, and by signing this Agreement, Consultant certifies under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against Consultant within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of Consultant's failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders Consultant to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Exhibit D-8 406 EXHIBIT "E" - FTA PROVISIONS FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, including the other Exhibits attached thereto, the following provisions shall apply if funding for the Services is provided, in whole or in part, from the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA"). In addition, the exhibits attached to this Agreement, may be replaced and substituted with similar forms required by FTA. Consultant agrees to complete any such substitute forms. 1. NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS TO THIRD -PARTIES BY USE OF A DISCLAIMER (1) The Commission and Consultant a► •wledge and agree that, notwithstanding any concurrence by the Feder. o ment in or approval of the solicitation or award of the underlying contr- , absent t -xpress written consent by the Federal Government ("Governme , the ederal G. ernment is not a party to this contract and shall not be subje y obligations or liabilities to the Commission, Consultant, or any other party 'ether or not a party to that contract) pertaining to any matter resulting from the Win• ing contract. (2) The Consultant agrees to i e the above clause in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Fed I assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clause shall not be modified, except to identify the subconsultant who will be subject to its provisions. 2. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS AND RELATED ACTS (1) The Consultant acknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, as amended, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801 et seq. and U.S. DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies," 49 C.F.R. Part 31, apply to its actions pertaining to this Project. Upon execution of the underlying contract, the Consultant certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, it may make, or causes to be made, pertaining to the underlying contract or the FTA assisted project for which this contract work is being performed. In addition to other penalties that may be applicable, the Consultant further acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification, the Federal Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 on the Consultant to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MASTER AGREEMENT For Federal Transit Administration Agreements authorized by 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, Title 23, U.S.C. (Highways), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969, as amended, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, 23 U.S.C. § 101 note, or other Federal enabling legislation; FTA MA(14); October 1, 2007; [http://www.fta.dot.qov/documents/14-Master.pdfl. Exhibit E-1 407 (2) The Consultant also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, certification, assurance, or representation to the Federal Government under a contract connected with a project that is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance originally awarded by FTA under the authority of 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 or any other Federal law, the Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5323(1) on the Consultant, to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. (3) The Consultant agrees to include the above two clauses in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clauses shall not be modified, excep r identify the subconsultant who will be subject to the provisions. 3. ACCESS TO RECORDS (1) The Consultant agrees to provide U.S. Secretary of Transportation, the Co any of their authorized representati and other data of the Consultant required by 49 U.S.C. § 5325(g). ssion, th ='FTA Administrator, the r General of the United States or all Project work, materials, payrolls, tly pertinent to this contract as (2) The Consultant .r -es perm : ny of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoev s and transcriptions as reasonably needed. (3) The Co _• r= .: to maintain all books, records, accounts and reports required un. is con t fo period of not less than three years after the date of transmission he final xpenditure report, except in the event of litigation or settlement of cl. a ' g from the performance of this contract, in which case Consultant agrees aintain same until the Commission, the FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General, or any of their duly authorized representatives, have disposed of all such litigation, appeals, claims or exceptions related thereto. Reference 49 CFR 18.39(i)(11). (4) The Consultant agrees to require its subcontractors and third party contractors to provide the same. 4. FEDERAL CHANGES Consultant shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA regulations, policies, procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed directly or by reference in the Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement between the Commission and the Federal Government Exhibit E-2 408 ("Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement"), as they may be amended or promulgated from time to time during the term of this contract. Consultant's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this contract. 5. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS (1) Nondiscrimination - In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., U.S. DOT regulations, "Nondiscrimination in Federally - Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation — Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act," 49 C.F.R. Part 21, FTA Circular 4702.1A, "Title VI and Title VI — Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients," May 13, 2007, Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Consultant agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing regulations and other implementing requirements FTA may issue. (2) Equal Employment Opportunity - The following equal employment opportunity requirements apply to the underlying contract: (a) Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Sex —T of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2 provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 5332, and • • requirements of U.S. Department of La•`®r ant agrees to comply with Title VII and equal employment opportunity equal employment opportunity regulations, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor," 41 C.F.R. Parts 60 et seq., (which implement Executive Order No. 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e note), and with any applicable Federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and Federal policies that may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in the course of the Project. The Consultant agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. (3) Age - In accordance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 through 634 and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Consultant agrees to refrain from discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. Exhibit E-1 409 (4) Disabilities - In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Consultant agrees that it will comply with the requirements of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. (5) DBE Program Compliance - The Commission has established a DBE Program pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 26, which applies to FTA funded agreements. The requirements and procedures of the Commission's DBE Program are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Consultant shall complete Exhibits "G" and "H" of this Agreement, or similar forms to be provided by the Commission, in compliance with the Commission's DBE Program for FTA funded agreements. Failure by Consultant or its subcontractor(s) to carry out the Commission's DBE Program procedures and requirements, or the applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 26, section 1101(b) of SAFETEA-LU, 23 U.S.C. § 101 note, and U.S. DOT regulations, "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs," 49 C.F.R. Part 26, shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement. Such a material breach may be grounds for termination of this Agreement or such other appropriate administrative remedy as the Commission deems appropriate. The Consultant shall ensure that a provision mandating compliance with the Commission's DBE Program for FTA funded agreements is included in any and all sub - agreements entered into which arise out of or are related to this Agreement. Consultant shall also promptly provide the Commission with all necessary information related to the DBE status of its subcontractors. Should the DBE status of any of its subcontractors change in any way, Consultant shall promptly inform the Commission of this change. (6) The Consultant also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA, modified only if necessary to identify the affected parties. 6. TERMINATION PROVISIONS The termination provisions found at Section 21 of this Agreement are consistent with the termination provisions suggested by FTA for the protection of the Federal Government. The termination provisions found at Section 21 of this Agreement control termination under this Agreement. 7. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Instructions for Certification 1. By signing and submitting a Proposal, the Consultant is providing the signed certification set out below. Exhibit E-2 410 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the Consultant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, Commission may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to Commission if at any time the Consultant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible," "lower tier covered transaction," "participant," "persons," "lower tier covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549 [49 CFR Part 29]. You may contact Commission for assistance in obtaining a cop ; those regulations. 5. The Consultant agrees by submitting a Proposal .t, uld the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly en nto any I • tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, decl ible, or .luntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless •. '. -d in writing by Commission. 6. The Consultant further agrees by sub Prop• that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspe ion •i ity and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction", withou ' ifica , in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier co ed t sac s. 7. A participant in a covered participant in a lower ti voluntarily excluded erroneous. A particip eligibility of its princip Nonprocurement List issue ion :y rely upon a certification of a prospective action that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or ransaction, unless it knows that the certification is e the method and frequency by which it determines the participant may, but is not required to, check the U.S. General Service Administration. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. Except for transactions authorized under Paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to all remedies available to the Federal Government, Commission may pursue available remedies including suspension and/or debarment. 9. The Consultant agrees to comply, and assures the compliance of each subconsultant, lessee, or third party contractor, with Executive Orders Nos. 12549 and 12689, "Debarment Exhibit E-3 411 and Suspension," 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note, and U.S. DOT regulations, "Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)," 49 C.F.R. Part 29. 10. The Consultant agrees to, and assures that its subconsultants, lessees and third party contractors have reviewed the "Excluded Parties Listing System" at http://elps.gov/ before entering into any third sub agreement, lease or third party contract. "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion" (1) The Consultant certifies, by submission of this bid or proposal, that neither it nor its "principals" [as defined at 49 C.F.R. § 29.105(p)] is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) When the Consultant is unable to certify to the statements in this certification, it shall attach an explanation to this proposal. 8. PROVISIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, BREACHES, OR OTHER LITIGATION Disputes - Disputes arising in the performance of this Contract which are not resolved by agreement of the parties shall be decided in writing by the Commission Executive Director, or his or her designee. This decision shall be final and conclusive unless within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of its copy, the Consultant mails or otherwise furnishes a written appeal to the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee. In connection with any such appeal, the Consultant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its position. The decision of the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall be binding upon the Consultant and the Consultant shall abide be the decision. Performance During Dispute - Unless otherwise directed by Commission, Consultant shall continue performance under this Contract while matters in dispute are being resolved. Claims for Damages - Should either party to the Contract suffer injury or damage to person or property because of any act or omission of the party or of any of his employees, agents or others for whose acts he is legally liable, a claim for damages therefor shall be made in writing to such other party within a reasonable time after the first observance of such injury of damage. Remedies - Unless this contract provides otherwise, all claims, counterclaims, disputes and other matters in question between the Commission and the Consultant arising out of or relating to this agreement or its breach will be decided by arbitration if the parties mutually agree, or in a court of competent jurisdiction within the State in which the Commission is located. Rights and Remedies - The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement and the rights and remedies available hereunder shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, Exhibit E-4 412 obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. No action or failure to act by the Commission, or Consultant shall constitute a waiver of any right or duty afforded any of them under the Contract, nor shall any such action or failure to act constitute an approval of or acquiescence in any breach thereunder, except as may be specifically agreed in writing. FTA Notification - Consultant shall notify FTA in writing of any current or prospective major dispute, breach, default, or litigation that may affect the Federal Government's interests in the Project. If the Consultant wishes to name the Federal Government as a party to litigation, the Consultant shall inform FTA in writing before doing so. 9. LOBBYING Lobbying Restrictions. To the extent applicable, Consultant agrees to: (1) Comply, and assure the compliance of each subcont or at any tier, with U.S. DOT regulations, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," 49 C.F.R. - modified as necessary by 31 U.S.C. § 1352. (2) Comply with Federal statutory provisions, t Federal assistance funds for activities designed to on legislation or appropriations, except t • h prop 10. CLEAN AIR applicab e, prohibiting the use of nce Congress or a State legislature fficial channels. (1) The Consultant agrees t• • mp - . . pplicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Cle. n Ai , as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 through 7671q. The Consultant agrees to r - _ v . ion to the Commission and understands and agrees that the Commissio ill, in tur ep each violation as required to assure notification to FTA and the appropri. PA R: ,ional Office. (2) The Consultant also agre to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. 11. CLEAN WATER (1) The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 through 1377. The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the Commission and understands and agrees that the Commission will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FTA and the appropriate EPA Regional Office. (2) The Consultant also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. 12. ENERGY CONSERVATION Exhibit E-5 413 Energy Conservation. To the extent applicable, Consultant agrees to comply with the mandatory energy efficiency standards and policies within the applicable State energy conservation plans issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6321 et seq. To the extent applicable, Consultant agrees to perform an energy assessment for any building constructed, reconstructed, or modified with FTA assistance, as provided in FTA regulations, "Requirements for Energy Assessments," 49 C.F.R. Part 622, Subpart C. 13. CONFORMANCE WITH NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE National Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and Standards. To the extent applicable, Consultant agrees to conform, to the extent applicable, to the National Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture and Standards as required by SAFETEA-LU § 5307(c), 23 U.S.C. § 512 note, and with FTA Notice, "FTA National ITS Architecture Policy on Transit Projects" 66 Fed. Reg. 1455 et seq., January 8, 2001, and other subsequent Federal directives that may be issued. 14. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS To the extent applicable, Consultant agrees to •I "'' h the Federal programs specified below and, with regard to such programs, C• Itant agrees not compromise the Commission's compliance with Federal requirements . •ertains to the Project. The Programs are as follows: (1) Urbanized Area Formula Progra orized under 49. U.S.C. § 5307. (2) Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5310 as amended by SAFETEA-LU and subsection 3012(b) of SAFETEA-LU, 49 U.S.C. § 5310 note, respectively. (3) New Freedom Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5317. (4) Nonurbanized Area Formula Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5311(b). (5) Clean Fuels Grant Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5308. (6) Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Grant Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5316 15. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE The Commission shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the Commission of the contract work and pay retainage to prime contractors based on these acceptances. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from a subcontractor within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted Exhibit E-6 414 including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the Commission. Federal regulations (49 CFR 26.29) require that any delay or postponement of payment over 30 days may take place only for good cause and with the Commission's prior written approval. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating prime contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. These requirements shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to the prime contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the prime contractor, deficient subcontract performance, or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This provision applies to both DBE and non -DBE prime contractors and subcontractors. 16. INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TERMS The preceding provisions include, in part, certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by the Federal Transit Authority, whether or not expressly set forth in the preceding contract provisions. All contractual provisions required by the Federal Transit Authority, as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1 F, are hereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. The Contractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any Commission requests which would cause the Commission to be in violation of the FTA terms and conditions. 17. EMPL ENT PROVISIONS To the extent applicabl the Services, Consultant shall comply with the following: A. Equal Employment Opportunity — Consultant must comply with Executive Order 11246 (3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order 11375 (3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684), "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," and as supplemented by regulations at 41 CFR chapter 60, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor." B. Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874 and 40 U.S.C. 276c) — Consultant must comply with the Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, "Consultants and Subconsultants on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States"). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is otherwise Exhibit E-7 415 entitled. The Commission shall report all suspected or reported violations to the responsible DOE contracting officer. C. Contact Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333) — Consultant must comply with Sections 102 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5). Under Section 102 of the Act, each Consultant is required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 11/2 times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. Section 107 of the Act is applicable to construction work and provides that no laborer or mechanic is required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily avai le on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence D. Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a) — Consultant comb ith the Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a to 276a-7) as supplemented by D rtment of L. regulations (29 CFR Part 5). 18. FTA DISADVANTAGED BUSIN E (DBE) REQUIREMENTS A. General DBE Requireme agreements with the U.S. De adopted a Disadvantaged Bu with Title 49 CFR Part 26, Department of Transpo stipulated regulation goals and objective CFR 26 in the perform In dance with Federal financial assistance nsportation (U.S. DOT), Commission has DBE) Policy and Program, in conformance pa • •y Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in ms" (the "Regulations"). This RFP is subject to these that Commission achieves its overall DBE Program encourages the participation of DBEs as defined in 49 racts financed in whole or in part with U.S. DOT funds. It is the policy of the Comm` , on to: 1. Ensure nondiscrimination in the contracts; award and administration of DOT -assisted 2. Create a level playing field on which DBE's can compete fairly for DOT -assisted contracts; 3. Ensure that the DBE program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; 4. Ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 C.F.R. part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBE's; 5. Help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT assisted contracts; 6. To promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally assisted contracts and procurement activities; and Exhibit E-8 416 7. Assist in the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program. B. Discrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of subcontracts. Any terms used herein that are defined in 49 CFR Part 26, or elsewhere in the Regulations, shall have the meaning set forth in the Regulations. C. Commission's Race -Neutral DBE Program: A Race -Neutral DBE Program is one that, while benefiting DBEs, is not solely focused on DBE firms. Therefore, under a Race -Neutral DBE Program, Commission does not establish numeric race -conscious DBE participation goals on its DOT -assisted contracts. There is no FTA DBE goal on this Project. Consultant shall not be required to achieve a specific level of DBE participation as a condition of contract compliance in the performance of this DOT -assisted contract. However, Consultant shall adhere to race -neutral DBE participation co m1 itment(s) made at the time of award of any Task Order (as defined in the Model Contra D. Race -Neutral DBE Submissions and Ongoing Reportin• '-quirements (Post -Award): For each Task Order proposal, the successful Consultant sh- omplete and submit to Commission a"DBE Race -Neutral Participation Listing" in the form ovided by Commission. In the event DBE(s) are utilized in the performance of the Task Order, Consultant shall comply with applicable reporting requirements. E. Performance of DBE Subconsultani DBE subconsultants listed by Consultant in its "DBE Race -Neutral Participation Listing" submitted at the time of Task Order proposal shall perform the work and supply the materials for which they are listed, unless Consultant has received prior written authorization from Commission to perform the work with other forces or to obtain the materials from other sources. Consultant shall provide written notification to Commission in a timely manner of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation. This notice should be provided prior to the commencement of that portion of the work. F. DBE Certification Status: If a listed DBE subconsultant is decertified during the life of any Task Order, the decertified subconsultant shall notify Consultant in writing with the date of decertification. If a non -DBE subconsultant becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Task Order, the DBE subconsultant shall notify Consultant in writing with the date of certification. Consultant shall furnish the written documentation to Commission in a timely manner. Consultant shall include this requirement in all subcontracts. G. Consultant's Assurance Clause Regarding Non -Discrimination: In compliance with State and Federal anti -discrimination laws, Consultant shall affirm that it will not exclude or discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in consideration of contract award opportunities. Further, Consultant shall affirm that they will consider, and utilize subconsultants and vendors, in a manner consistent with non-discrimination objectives. H. Violations: Failure by the selected Consultant(s) to carry out these requirements shall be a material breach of the contract to be awarded pursuant to this RFP, which may result in the termination of the contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to: (1) Withholding monthly progress payments; Exhibit E-9 417 (2) Assessing sanctions; (3) Liquidated damages; and/or (4) Disqualifying the Consultant from future bidding as non -responsible. 49 C.F.R. § 26.13(b). I. Prompt Payment: Consultant shall pay its subconsultants for satisfactory performance of their contracts no later than 30 days from receipt of each payment Commission makes to the Consultant. 49 C.F.R. § 26.29(a), unless a shorter period is provided in the contract. J. Compliance with DBE Requirements Contained in FTA Provisions: Consultant shall comply with all DBE reporting and other requirements contained in this Agreement. Exhibit E-10 418 EXHIBIT "F" — LOBBYING ACTIVITIES DISCLOSURE Exhibit F-1 419 Not Applicable to the Dudek Team Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-Q Disclosure of Lobbying Activities EXHIBIT 10-Q DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES COMPLETE THIS FORM TO DISCLOSE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 1352 1. Type of Federal Action: a. b. c. d. e. f. contract grant cooperative agreement loan loan guarantee loan insurance 2. Status of Federal Action: ❑ a bid/offer/application b. initial award c. post -award 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity nPrime nSubawardee Tier , if known Congressional District, if known 6. Federal Department/Agency: 8. Federal Action Number, if known: 10. Name and Address of Lobby Entity (If individual, last name, first name, MI) (attach Continua 12. Amount of Payment (check all that $ n actual 13. Form of Payment (check all 8 a. cash b. in -kind; spec 15. Brief Description,4# Services Per officer(s), employee(sor mem 16. Continuation Sheet(s) attached: 3. Report Type: ❑ a. initial b. material change For Material Change Only: year quarter date of last report 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime: Congression • 'strict, if known 7. Federal am Name/Description: CF3 umb • applicable and Amount, 1 . wn: ndi.6als Performing Services cluding address if different from No. 10) me, first name, MI) ry) e of Payment (check all that apply) a. retainer b. one-time fee c. commission d. contingent fee e deferred f. other, specify med or to be performed and Date(s) of Service, including s) contacted, for Payment Indicated in Item 12: (attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary) Yes n No I J 17. Information requested through this form is authorized by Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying reliance was placed by the tier above when his transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to Congress semiannually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Federal Use Only: Signature: Print Name: Title: Telephone No.: Date: Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form - LLL Standard Form LLL Rev. 04-28-06 Distribution: Orig- Local Agency Project Files LPP 13-01 EXHIBi 1 Page 1 May 8, 2013 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Hanan Sawalha, Management Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter & Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Freeway Service Patrol Tow Operator Fuel Relief Reimbursement WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize one-time payment as fuel relief reimbursement to Pepe's Towing for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beats 4, 7, 8 for a total amount of $6,270 for the months of March through June 2022; 2) Approve Agreement No. 18-45-132-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-45-132-00, with Coastal Pride Towing for continued FSP services on Beats 20, 34, 35 for an additional amount of $187,400 for fuel relief reimbursement, including a one-time reimbursement for the months of March through June 2022 and ongoing monthly reimbursements through the term of the agreement ending August 29, 2023, for a total amount not to exceed $2,652,356; 3) Approve Agreement No. 17-45-061-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 17-45-061-00, with Pepe's Towing for continued FSP services on Beats 18, 19 for an additional amount of $24,750 for fuel relief reimbursement, including a one-time reimbursement for the months of March through June 2022 and ongoing monthly reimbursements through the term of the agreement ending September 30, 2022, for a total amount not to exceed $4,308,922; 4) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-103-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 16-45-103-00, with Steve's Towing for continued FSP services on the express lanes for an additional $47,900 for fuel relief reimbursement, including a one-time reimbursement for the months of March through June 2022 and ongoing monthly reimbursements through the term of the agreement ending January 31, 2023, or a total amount not to exceed $2,216,097; and 5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Agenda Item 71 421 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, is the principal agency in Riverside County, in partnership with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), managing the FSP program. The purpose of the FSP program is to provide a continuously roving tow services patrol along designated freeway segments (referred to as beats) to relieve freeway congestion and facilitate the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and those involved in minor accidents on local freeways. Contracts with tow operators for FSP services are typically entered into for five-year terms. At the time of the request for proposals (RFP), operators are asked to provide tow rates for all five years, taking into consideration possible inflation and other cost increases. However, the recent fuel cost increases were more significant than expected and operators with older contracts, and consequently lower hourly rates, are being impacted. DISCUSSION: The continuous roving requirement of the FSP program results in high mileage travelled by each FSP truck. Driver mileage is logged on a daily basis. The average monthly miles driven per truck for the impacted contracts is as follows: Operator Contract Expiration Beats Number of Trucks Average Monthly Miles Per Truck Coastal Pride 18-45-132-02 08/29/2023 20, 34, 35 6 5,700 16-45-082-04 16-45-083-02 03/31/2022 4, 7, 8 6 4,856 Pepe's Towing 16-45-044-04 17-45-061-03 09/30/2022 18, 19 5 4,098 Steve's Towing 16-45-103-03 01/31/2023 Express Lanes 3 5,190 Due to the unprecedented increases in fuel expenses staff is recommending a fuel relief reimbursement to help our tow operators maintain viable operations. The contracts being considered for fuel relief reimbursement are three years or older and belong to three operators: Coastal Pride Towing, Pepe's Towing, and Steve's Towing. For reference, contracts three years or older have hourly tow rates of $63.96 - $70.00 compared to more current contracts ranging between $80.07 - $89.94. It is estimated that one gallon of fuel is used to travel between 10-14 miles. The gallon price of diesel fuel has steadily increased since the beginning of the calendar year. According to statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average cost of diesel fuel started at $4.80 per gallon in January 2022 and has reached $6.48 per gallon as of May 2022. Agenda Item 71 422 Month California No 2 Diesel Retail Prices Dollars per Gallon January 2022 $4.803 February 2022 $5.018 March 2022 $6.133 April 2022 $6.260 May 2022 $6.479 Source: EIA The fuel rates used by the tow operators at the time of the price proposal range between $4.00 and $5.00. The proposed fuel relief payment will occur in two parts. The first portion will be a fuel relief reimbursement for FY 21-22, specifically the months of March — June. The second portion will be recurring monthly payments added to their invoices, through the term of the agreements. In order to determine the fuel relief reimbursement amount for each operator, estimated gallons used for March - June were multiplied by the difference of the average fuel cost for the month, per the EIA, and the proposed fuel cost submitted by the operator at the time of the RFP. The ongoing monthly relief payments will be determined by multiplying the estimated gallons used, based on average monthly mileage, by the difference of the average fuel cost for the month, per the EIA, and the proposed fuel cost submitted by the operator at the time of the RFP. Monthly Fuel Estimated Average fuel cost Operator Relief = gallons used X for the month per - proposed fuel Reimbursement for the month the EIA cost at bid These payments will be made for any overage of fuel cost above the operator RFP fuel price, up to a cost of $8.00 per gallon and end September 2023. For any given month where the average cost of fuel per the EIA drops to the fuel rate at which the operator bid or lower, no relief reimbursement will be made for that month. Staff will be monitoring fuel prices on a monthly basis and should fuel cost exceed $8.00 per gallon, this item will be brought back to the Commission with an updated recommendation. A breakdown of the total fuel relief reimbursement plan is as follows: Agenda Item 71 423 Operator Contract Expiration FY 21/22 Fuel Relief (Mar —June 2022) Ongoing Maximum Fuel Relief for July - Remaining Term of Agreement Maximum Total Fuel Relief Reimbursement Coastal Pride 18-45-132-02 08/29/2023 $27,100 $160,300 $187,400 16-45-082-04 Pepe's 16-45-083-02 03/31/2022 $6,270 - $6,270 Towing 16-45-044-04 17-45-061-03 09/30/2022 $9,300 $15,450 $24,750 Steve's Towing 16-45-103-03 01/31/2023 $11,500 $36,400 $47,900 Total $54,170 $212,150 $266,320 The current rates of the impacted contracts range between $63.96 - $70.00 per hour. Factoring in the maximum fuel relief adjustment into the monthly operating reimbursement, the range of hourly rates is approximately $73.00 - $80.00. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funding, consisting of Caltrans, SAFE funds and toll revenues, for towing services is available in Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget and included in the proposed FY 2022/23 budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 Amount: $54,170 $189,250 $22,900 Source of Funds: State of California, SAFE funds, Toll revenues Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 81014 00000 0000 20145 81002 009199 81014 00000 0000 591 31 81002 001599 81014 00000 0000 515 31 81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/16/2022 Attachments: 1) Draft Agreement No. 18-45-132-03 2) Draft Agreement No. 17-45-061-04 3) Draft Agreement No. 16-45-103-04 Agenda Item 71 424 4) Description of Service Areas Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on June 27, 2022 In Favor: 9 Abstain: 0 No: 0 Agenda Item 71 425 ATTACHMENT 1 Agreement No. 18-45-132-03 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL FOR BEAT #20, #34 AND #35 WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WITH OJ BARKA, INC. 1. PARTIES AND DATE 1.1 This Amendment No. 3 is made and eNred into as 2022 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public entity ("COMMISSION"), acting as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freway Emergencie�s (referred to herein as "SAFE"), and OJ Barka, Inc., a CalifoThia corporation (referred to herein as "CONTRACTOR"). SAFE and CONTRACTOR are sometimes individually referred to herein as "Party" and collectively as "Parts". 2. RECITALS 2.1 SAFE and Coastal Pride Towing, Inc. ent into Agreement No. 18-45- 132-00, dated August 21, 2018, for the purpose of providing Freeway Service Patrol ("FSP") services on Beat No. 20, 34, & 35 within Riverside County (the "MasterjAgreement"). 2.2 SAFE, Coastal Pride Towi nd CONTRACTOR entered into an Assignment and Assumptio Agreement dated May 6, 2019 (referred to herein as Amendment No. 1) in order to assign the Master Agreement from Coastal Pride Towing, Inc. to CONTRACTOR. 2.3 'AFE and CONTRACTOR entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement, dated August 28, 2011, for the purpose of extending the term of the Master Agreement and to acknowledge the right of SAFE to waive penalties, imposed pursuant to the terms of the Master Agreement, in its discretion. 2.4 SAFE and CONTRACTOR now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to add fuel relief reimbursement. 3. TERMS 3.1 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment No. 3 shall not exceed One Hundred Eighty -Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Dollars ($187,400). 426 3.2 The maximum not to exceed value of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 3 shall not exceed Two Million, Six Hundred Fifty -Two Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty -Six Dollars ($2,652,356). 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 3, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as previously amended, in luding without limitation the indemnity and insurance provision .11 remain in full force and effect and shall govern the a of the parties under this Amendment No. 3. 3.4 This Amendment shall be governed b t` laws California. Venue shall be in Riversid- ty. State of 3.5 The recitals set forth above are d correct and are inco . ted into this Amendment No. 3 by re ce. 3.6 This Amendment No. 3 may be signe shall constitute an original. 3.7 A manually signed copy o transmitted by facsimile, email transmission shall be deemed t terparts, each of which mendment No. 3 which is er means of electronic erthe same legal effect as delivery ® an original executed copy of this Amendment No. 3 for all pu, -s. This Amendment No. 3 may be signed using an elec signature. [Sign ures on following page] 427 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-45-132-03 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY OJ BARKA, ICJ California Corporation TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature APPROVED AS TO FA EST: By: ` By: Best Best & Krie General Counsel Its: * A corporatio uires t ; natures of two corporate officers. One signature shall of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on t , attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 428 ATTACHMENT 2 Agreement No. 17-45-061-04 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL FOR BEAT #18 AND #19 WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WITH PEPE'S TOWING SERVICES 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 4 for Freeway Service Patrol Services is made and entered into as of , 2022, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public entity ("Commission"), acting as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (referred to herein as "SAFE"), and Pepe's Inc., a California corporation doing business as Pepe's Towing Services (referred to herein as "Contractor"). SAFE and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to herein as "Party" and cQ, i as "Parties". 2. RECITALS 2.1 SAFE and Contractor ha n red into an agreement dated October 1, 2017, for the purpose of providing Freeway Service Patrol ("FSP") services on Beat No. 18 and J9 within Riverside County (the "Master Agreement"). 2. SAFE and Contractor amended the Master Agreement on July 9, 2019 "Amendment No. 1 "), in order to add construction FSP services required for the State Route 60 truck lane construction project (the "60 TL Project"). SAFE and Contractor amended the Master Agreement on June 10, 020 ("Amendment No. 2"), in order to exercise the first one-year option extending the term to September 30, 2021 and add construction FSP services required for the Caltrans 1-10 Tune -Up construction project ("1-10 Tune -Up Project") between Pennsylvania Avenue in Beaumont to SR -111 in Cabazon. 2.4 SAFE and Contractor entered into an Amended and Restated Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement ("Restated Amendment No. 2") on September 25, 2020 to expressly include the term extension. 2.5 SAFE and Contractor amended the Master Agreement on September 30, 2021, in order to exercise the second one-year option extending the term to September 30, 2022. 429 2.6 SAFE and Contractor now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to add fuel relief reimbursement. 3. TERMS 3.1 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment No. 4 shall not exceed Twenty -Four Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($24,750). 3.2 The maximum not to exceed value of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 4 shall not exceed Four Million, Three Hundred Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred Twenty -Two Dollars ($4,308,922). 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 4, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as previously amended, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the Parties under this Amendment No. 4. 3.4 This Amendment No. 4 shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.5 A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 4 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original xecuted copy of this Amendment No. 4 for all purposes. This Amendment No. 4 may be signed using an electronic signature. This Amendment No. 4 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. [Signatures on following page] 430 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 17-45-061-04 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: PEPE'S, INC. DBA PEPE'S TOWING SERVICES Anne Mayer, Executive Director ure APPROVED AS TO lSNI ® ATTEST: By: Best°'est & Krieger General Counsel By: Its: * A corporation requi e signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 431 ATTACHMENT 3 Agreement No. 16-45-103-04 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICES FOR BEAT NO. 91-T AND BEAT NO.15-T WITH E&S TOWING ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A STEVE'S TOWING 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 4 is made and entered into as of ' , 2022 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission acting in its capacity as the Riverside Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies ("SAFE"), a public entity, and E&S Towing Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation d/b/a Steve's Towing (referred to herein as "CONTRACTOR"). 2. RECITALS. 2.1 SAFE and CONTRACTOR have entered into an agreement dated December 29, 2016, for the provision of freeway patrol services on Beat No. 91-T on behalf of the SAFE (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 SAFE and CONTRACT Master Agreement, dated Master Agreement to Dec freeway service patrol service 2.3 SAFE and CONTRACTOR ha Master Agreement, dated June Services to include freeway servi beat (Beat No. 15-T); provide a ne for such Services; and allocate funds or CONTRACTOR to outfit two trucks to be used for the Services to meet FSP compliance requirements. e entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the ber 23, 201 extend the term of the er 31, 2021 for t ontinued provision of ered into an Amendment No. 2 to the 2020, in order to amend the Scope of atrol services for the 15 Express Lanes urly rate and additional compensation 2.4 SAFE and CONTRACTOR have entered into Amendment no. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated December 30, 2021, in order extend the term of the Master Agreement, provide a new hourly rate for Beat No. 91-T, and provide additional compensation for Services. 2.5 SAFE and CONTRACTOR now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to add fuel relief reimbursement. 3. TERMS 3.1 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment No. 4 shall not exceed Forty -Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($47,900). 3.2 The maximum not to exceed value of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 4 shall not exceed Two Million, Two Hundred Sixteen Thousand, Ninety -Seven Dollars ($2,216,097). 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 4, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as previously amended, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern 432 the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 4. 3.4 This Amendment No. 4 shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.5 This Amendment No. 4 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.6 A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 4 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission ` hall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an origina uted copy of this Amendment No. 4 for all purposes. This Amendment may be signed using an electronic signature. [Signatures on following pa 433 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 16-45-103-04 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director E&S TOWING ENTERPRISES, INC. dba STEVE'S TOWING Si. re me APPROVED AS T ATTEST: By: Be Gene By: Its: * A corporation req signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 434 ATTACHMENT 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL - IMPACTED BEATS DESCRIPTION BEAT COMPANY NO. OF TRUCKS SERIVCE AREA LENGTH IN MILES 4 Pepe's Towing 2 SR -91 from Magnolia Ave to 60/91/215 Interchange 11.0 7 Pepe's Towing 2 SR -60 from Milliken St to Main St 11.7 8 Pepe's Towing 2 SR -60 from Central Ave to 1-215 at Alessandro Blvd to S -R60 at Theodore St 12.3 18 Pepe's Towing 3 1-215 from RC line to Central Ave 5.8 19 Pepe's Towing 2 1-215 from Alessandro to 74/W 4th St 10.2 20 Coastal Pride Towing 2 1-215 from SR -74/W 4th St to Murrieta Hot Springs 16.8 34 Coastal Pride Towing 2 1-15 from Indian Truck Trail to SR -74 1-15 from SR -74 to Bundy Canyon Road 14.1 35 Coastal Pride Towing 2 1-15 from Bundy Canyon Road to SR -79/ Temecula Parkway 12.9 Express Lanes Steve's Towing 3 SR- 91 Exp Lanes from OC line to McKinley, 1 - 15S Connector to Ontario Ave 1-15 Exp Lanes from SR60 to Cajalco Rd. 27.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 435 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Jennifer Fuller, Financial Administration Manager Sergio Vidal, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2020/21 Transportation Development Act and Measure A Audit Results AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for Fiscal Year 2020/21. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May 2021, following a competitive procurement, the Commission awarded agreements for a three-year contract term with three one-year options to extend the agreements to four audit firms to perform financial and compliance audits and agreed -upon procedures (audits) for TDA claimants (Article 3 and Article 4), Measure A recipients, and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Member Agencies related to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Local Development Mitigation Fee. The firms and the services provided are as follows: Audit Firm Eide Bailey LLP (Eide Bailey) Geographic Region Western Riverside County Audits Performed TDA, Measure A LSR MSCHP Brown Armstrong Accountancy Corporation (Brown Armstrong) BCA Watson Rice LLP (BCAWR) Conrad LLP (Conrad) Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, County of Riverside TDA, Measure A LSR, MSCHP Western Riverside County Measure A LSR, Measure A Specialized Transit, MSCHP Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley TDA, Measure A LSR, MSCHP Each jurisdiction was assigned one audit firm for all audits required. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) have elected to hire their own auditors. While the contracts include RCA audits, this staff report only reports the results of the TDA and Measure A audits. Agenda Item 71 436 Overview of Audits RCTC Eide Bailly, Brown Armstrong, BCAWR, and Conrad, along with the other agencies' auditors, completed the FY 2020/21 audits and issued the audit reports. The following is a summary of the 61 audits performed: Funding Type TDA Article 3 (bicycle and pedestrian projects) TDA Article 4 (transit) Type of Procedure ■ Financial and compliance audit Eide Brown Bailly Armstrong 'M BCAWR Conrad Other Auditors Total 7 Measure A specialized transit Financial and compliance audit 4 0 2 Agreed -upon procedures 0 0 15 0 0 15 Measure A local streets and roads Agreed -upon procedures 4 13 2 10 0 29 Based on a review of the reports, the following items are highlights from the FY 2020/21 audit results. TDA Article 4 (Transit) • Three transit operators (Corona, Riverside, and Riverside Transit Agency) did not meet the fare ratio requirement; however, Assembly Bill (AB) 90, signed by the Governor in June 2020, prohibits the imposition of a penalty on operators that do not maintain the required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost during FY 2019/20 or FY 2020/21. AB149, signed by the Governor in July 2021, extended the exemption through fiscal year 2023. • Banning's auditor identified a control weakness over the financial reporting process as the city did not reconcile all entries, so revenue was initially overstated. Measure A Specialized Transit • Two agencies (Care Connexxus and Community Connect -211 Program and Transportation Access Program (TAP Program)) did not meet the adjusted match requirement by $1,564. The Care Connexxus shortfall was $104, or about 0.1 percent of the adjusted match requirement, while the Community Connect -211 Program and TAP Program shortfalls were approximately .2 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, of the adjusted match requirement. • Five agencies (Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley, Care -A -Van, Exceed, Friends of Moreno Valley, and Independent Living Partnership) had excess revenues over expenses totaling $29,626, of which $2 is related to excess Measure A funds received by the Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley. The balance of $29,624 relates to excess cash matching Agenda Item 71 437 contributions that may be retained by the agencies. The Community Connect 211 Program and TAP Program also had excess Measure A revenues of $45 and $106 respectively which relate to the unmet match for both programs. • Five agencies (Blindness Support, Care Connexxus, Community Connect -TAP Program, Forest Folk, and Riverside University Health System Medical Center) had an excess of expenses over revenues aggregating $52,215. Generally, the agencies are responsible to cover the excess of expenses; however, if there is a balance of Measure A funds allocated to an agency, the agency may submit a revised claim. Measure A Local Streets and Roads • Three jurisdictions (Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Temecula) met their maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements using the prior year carryover, as permitted under the MOE Guidelines. • Five jurisdictions (Canyon Lake, Corona, Murrieta, Palm Desert, and Perris) have fund balances in excess of three years of revenues. While the Commission policy suggests such amounts should not exceed three years, the jurisdictions provided reasonable explanations for the amounts, including project delays and capital improvement plans to expend those funds on projects in the next five years. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types of TDA (Articles 3 and 4) and Measure A (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding audits. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the year ended June 30, 2021, and other financial and compliance information. Attachments: 1) FY 2020/21 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule 2) FY 2020/21 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule 3) FY 2020/21 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule 4) FY 2020/21 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Agenda Item 71 438 ATTACHMENT 1 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2021 Lake Moreno Palm County of Coachella Indio Elsinore Menifee Valley Springs Perris Riverside Temecula Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 3 $ 1,344,050 $ 88,748 $ - $183,263 $197,471 $ 146,500 $ - $ 283,237 $ 115,278 $ 801,500 Interest income 7 - 580 - - Total revenues 1,344,057 88,748 580 183,263 197,471 146,500 283,237 115,278 801,500 Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in (out) Grants refund to Agency Total other financing sources (uses) 473,669 183,263 210,301 125,000 227,890 801,500 1,344,057 88,748 (473,089) - (12,830) 146,500 (125,000) 55,347 115,278 - (88,748) 245,427 (28,065) (552) (552) (88,748) 245,427 - - - (28,065) Net changes in fund balance 1,343,505 - (227,662) - (12,830) 146,500 (125,000) 27,282 115,278 Prior period adjustment - - Fund balances at beginning of year (1,343,505) - 227,662 - (146,500) - (27,073) (115,278) Fund balances at end of year $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (12,830) $ - $(125,000) $ 209 $ - $ Source: 2021 Financial Statements 6/22/2022 439 ATTACHMENT 2 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2021 Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside PVVTA RTA1 SunLine' Total operating revenues $ 2,096 $ 18,116 $ 63,382 $ 65,367 $107,466 $ 3,217,731 $ 2,885,717 Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization 257,325 557,029 662,274 463,825 278,112 14,537,721 9,015,684 Other operating expenses 2,060,262 2,546,509 1,901,148 4,086,508 1,217,303 79,902,271 35,534,408 Total operating expenses 2,317,587 3,103,538 2,563,422 4,550,333 1,495,415 94,439,992 44,550,092 Operating loss (2,315,491) (3,085,422) (2,500,040) (4,484,966) (1,387,949) (91,222,261) (41,664,375) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Grants: Local Transportation Funds 2,126,487 2,239,340 10,788 146,733 873,926 11,077,782 11,000,000 State Transit Assistance/State of Good Repair 174,091 851,212 3,195 - - - - Federal 1,810,086 3,722,206 130,461 59,587,192 18,152,562 Measure A specialized transit - - - 175,000 5,955,883 Proposition 1 B/Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) 79,830 55,310 - - 68,731 1,424,447 Other 476 - (901) 20,000 393,740 Interest income 3,153 18,123 (36,036) 56 75,045 5,174 Interest expense (159) - (73,951) - - - Gain (loss) on sale of property 8,260 - - - 1,659 21,491 Other 20,909 - 2,202 - 1,893,014 - Total nonoperating revenue (expense) 2,409,418 3,149,491 1,842,192 3,760,253 1,093,174 74,627,879 35,135,110 Net increase (decrease) 93,927 64,069 (657,848) (724,713) (294,775) (16,594,382) (6,529,265) Capital Contributions 66,642 Transfer in from other City funds 465,446 278,846 Transfer out from other City Funds Prior period adjustment Net assets at beginning of year Net assets at end of year (100,000) - 260,886 339,596 15, 070, 530 14, 047, 089 (1,529,098) 2,166,251 2,848,286 307,188 2,539,292 105,435,922 82,210,193 $ (903,083) $ 2,409,166 $ 2,190,438 $ (156,639) $ 2,584,113 $ 103,912,070 $ 89,728,017 Unearned revenue at end of year: Operating $ 167,684 $ 776,076 $ 574,778 $ 1,517,378 $ 275,028 $ 4,690,373 $ 7,349,885 Capital 21,250 - - - $ 35,215,870 3,739,800 Total unearned revenue at end of year $ 188,934 $ 776,076 $ 574,778 $ 1,517,378 $ 275,028 $ 39,906,243 $ 11,089,685 Minimum fare ratio 10.00% 10.00% 15.00% 10.00% 10.00% 17.81% 19.12% Actual fare ratio 24.10% 22.52% 4.29% 1.65% 17.80% 9.80% 23.34% Fare ratio compliance status Met Met Did not meet; Did not meet; Met Did not meet; Met however however AB90 however AB90 AB90 requires no requires no requires no penalty penalty Source: 2021 Financial Statements nanaltt , 6/22/2022 The audits for RTA and SunLine were completed by other auditors hired by each entity. 440 ATTACHMENT 3 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2021 Riverside Riverside University University Health Health Boys & Girls Community Community System- Friends of Independent Operation System U.S. Blindness Club of Care Connect - Connect - Behavioral Moreno Living City of SafeHous Medical Veterans Voices for Support Menifee Valley Care -A -Van Connexxus 211 TAP Health Exceed Forest Folk Valley Partnership Norco e Center Initiative Children Operating revenues: Measure A $ 75,000 $ 9,725 $ 262,313 $ 116,924 $ 54,950 $ 93,637 $ 216,692 $ 56,508 $ 46,573 $ 58,003 $ 395,453 $ 63,449 $ 37,700 $301,002 $ 43,000 $ 121,486 In -kind match 10,500 - 45,308 - 2,500 13,662 31,347 15,874 471,893 32,759 - - - 212,240 Cash match 28,136 5,010 116,810 99,506 25,740 33,105 111,629 122,334 1,182 61,523 240,778 - 19,421 211,528 22,152 - Total operating revenues 113,636 14,735 424,431 216,430 83,190 140,404 328,321 178,842 79,102 135,400 1,108,124 96,208 57,121 512,530 65,152 333,726 Operating expenses -in kind 10,500 - 45,308 - 2,500 13,662 - 31,347 15,874 471,893 32,759 - - 212,240 Operating expenses -salaries & benefits 73,889 5,362 246,090 8,048 61,502 38,741 285,279 133,044 21,326 - 216,372 46,607 29,482 360,124 48,362 104,311 Operating expenses-nonpersonnel 35,316 9,370 106,045 42560 13,065 80,946 43,042 37,985 42,027 117,528 401,849 10,690 23,408 164,123 11,697 17,175 Operating expenses -administrative overhead - 3,924 6,123 8,364 7,619 17,567 6,152 4,231 17,281 5,093 Capital expenses - 162,139 - - - - - Total operating expenses/capital expenses 119,705 14,732 397,443 216,671 83,190 141,713 328,321 178,648 94,700 133,402 1,107,681 96,208 57,121 541,528 65,152 333,726 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over(under)expenses $ (6,069) $ 3 $ 26,988 $ (241) $ $ (1.309) $ $ 194 $ (15,598) $ 1 998 $ 443 $ $ - $(28,998) $ $ Exess revenues related to Measure A $ $ 2 $ - $ - $ 45 $ 106 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ Match requirement (as adjusted) $ 38.636 $ 5.009 $ 135.130 $ 99,610 $ 28.285 $ 48.182 $ 111.629 $ 60,740 $ 31,697 $ 56.106 $ 203,718 $ 32.711 $ 19.421 $184.120 $ 22.152 $ 113.467 Actual match $ 38.636 $ 5.010 $ 162,118 $ 99,506 $ 28,240 $ 46.767 $ 111,629 $ 122,334 $ 32,529 $ 77.397 $ 712,671 $ 32,759 $ 19,421 $211.528 $ 22.152 $ 212.240 Match requirement compliance status Met Met as adjusted Met as Did not meet Did not meet by Did not meet Met as Met as Met Met Met as adjusted Met as Met Met as Met Met adjusted by$104 $45 by$1.415 adjusted adjusted adjusted adjusted Source: 2021 Agreed -Upon Procedures Measure A Specialized Transit 6/22/2022 441 ATTACHMENT 4 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2021 Western County Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Corona Eastvale Hemet Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A $ 775,859 $ 1,317,492 $ 238,612 $ 286,782 $ 5,438,977 $ 1,828,741 $ 2,336,742 $ 2,878,604 $ 1,780,250 $ 2,422,869 $ 5,310,787 $ 3,241,369 $ 903,463 $ 2,718,981 $ 9,559,375 $ 1,220,369 $ 3,969,257 Reimbursements 65,903 Other revenues 144,717 12,180 811 24,455 Interest income 91 4,262 3,523 (203) 108,256 6,191 (4,028) 7,793 4,883 390 41,954 62,558 (592) 10,658 13,700 43,188 20,949 Other financing sources -transfers In 212,731 44,000 53,202 Total revenues 920,667 1,534,485 286,135 286,579 5,559,413 1,834,932 2,332,714 2,939,599 1,785,133 2,423,259 5,419,455 3,303,927 902,871 2,729,639 9,597,530 1,263,557 3,990,206 Expenditures and other financing uses: Engineering, construction, maintenance, and capital outlay 994,407 645,058 8,009 4,452,024 10,359 3,869,195 928,624 667,506 1,849,681 40,000 907,472 595,347 2,157,646 Administrative overhead/indirect costs 15,716 12,320 165,537 30,959 3,000 14,107 4,593 1,815 62,000 Capital outlay 538,832 270,103 732,775 7,568,591 Debt service Principal 790,000 Interest 266,854 Transfers out 125,000 314,063 - - - 24,524 - 46,431 2,349,522 1,305,546 1,483,393 155,700 - - 2,997,240 2,683,492 143,600 Total expenditures and other financing uses 1,135,123 314,063 657,378 8,009 4,617,561 604,674 3,869,195 2,034,909 2,349,522 1,973,052 3,617,284 933,068 907,472 595,347 10,567,646 2,745,492 2,301,246 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (214,456) 1,220,422 (371,243) 278,570 941,852 1,230,258 (1,536,481) 904,690 (564,389) 450,207 1,802,171 2,370,859 (4,601) 2,134,292 (970,116) (1,481,935) 1,688,960 Prior period adjustment/rounding (1) - 170,772 (24,213) 37,193 (1) - 1 (35) - Fund balances at beginning of year 1,632,262 1,348,380 800,660 587,663 18,313,591 3,144,498 7,447,329 1,540,861 1,819,763 687,225 4,317,691 8,397,771 784,435 6,215,355 23,564,145 3,390,953 7,741,676 Fund balances at end of year $ 1,417,806 $ 2,568,801 $ 429,417 $ 866,233 $ 19,426,215 $4,350,543 $ 5,948,041 $ 2,445,550 $ 1,255,374 $ 1,137,432 $ 6,119,862 $10,768,631 $ 779,799 $ 8,349,647 $ 22,594,029 $ 1,909,018 $ 9430,636 Fund balance by year received: 2021 $ 920,667 $ 1,534,485 $ 286,135 $ 286,579 $ 5,559,413 $ 1,834,932 $ 2,332,714 $ 2,445,550 $ 1,255,374 $ 1,137,432 $ 5,419,455 $ 3,303,927 $ 779,799 $ 2,729,639 $ 9,597,530 $ 1,263,557 $ 3,990,206 2020 497,139 1,011,676 143,282 208,997 5,425,032 1,506,266 1,991,530 700,407 2,792,560 2,169,076 7,800,505 645,461 3,496,665 2019 - 22,640 240,724 5,219,178 1,009,345 1,623,797 2,818,963 2,192,472 5,195,994 1,943,765 2018 & Prior - - - 129,933 3,222,592 - - - 1,853,181 - 1,258,460 - - - Total fund balances by year received $ 1,417,806 $ 2,568,801 $ 429,417 $ 866,233 $ 19,426,215 $ 4,350,543 $ 5,948,041 $ 2,445,550 $ 1,255,374 $ 1,137,432 $ 6,119,862 $10,768,631 $ 779,799 $ 8,349,647 $ 22,594,029 $ 1,909,018 $ 9,430,636 Cash and investments $ 1,233,124 $ 2,188,730 $ 360,677 $ 794,176 $ 18,313,363 $3,891,030 $ 7,074,893 $ 2,392,375 $ 740,466 $ 466,971 $ 4,634,736 $ 9,974,805 $ 609,749 $ 7,638,332 $ 20,003,831 $ 175,856 $ 8,315,377 MOE Base Year requirement $ 164,325 $ 515,908 $ 2,401 $ 28,873 $ 2,208,200 $ 38,949 $ 18,924 $ $ 960,771 $ 214,225 $ 1,459,153 $ 595,702 $ 22,536 $ 1,218,470 $ 12,449,203 $ 156,391 $ 1,431,799 Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 899,480 $ 3,876,563 $ 53,238 $ 195,688 $ 20,148,017 $ 485,044 $ 761,581 $ 26,465,611 $ 9,454,260 $ 8,847,129 $ 432,455 $ 101,841 $ 4,832,722 $ 58,356,301 $ 3,443,788 $ 12,917,923 MOE compliance status Met Met Met Met Met Met Met N/A Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met with use of carryover Source: 2021 Agreed -Upon Procedures Measure A Local Streets Roads 4 of 5 6/22/2022 442 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2021 L Coachella Vally j Palo Verde Valley Cathedral Desert Hot 1 Wildomar City Coachella Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Blythe 1 County of Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: MeasureA $ 873,126 $ 1,867,320 $ 766,227 $ 630,472 $ 328,146 $ 2,492,487 $ 1,917,446 $ 3,505,628 $ 3,101,321 $ 1,221,611 $ 817,879 $ 8,527,018 Reimbursements 2,924,394 Other revenues 16,981 171,444 1,245,378 89,649 Interest income 107 4,458 2,197 32 16 11,959 23,217 47,100 9,620 (35,320) 5,038 2,839 Other financing sources -transfers in 40,580 Total revenues 873,233 1,929,339 768,424 630,504 328,162 2,675,890 1,940,663 6,477,122 4,356,319 1,186,291 912,566 8,529,857 Expenditures and other financing uses: Engineering, construction, maintenance, and capital outlay 360,541 1,014,069 270,288 174,858 1,279,867 8,770 4,786,239 3,550,883 1,686,151 92,658 10,137,564 Administrative overhead/indirect costs 325,961 13,989 324,996 335,056 65,430 61,616 Capital outlay Debt service 132,108 Principal Interest Transfers out 45,200 132,983 - 182,441 - 256,810 260,085 - 1,095,300 - 776,166 - Totalexpendituresandotherfinancinguses 731,702 1,147,052 270,288 371,288 324,996 2,003,841 268,855 4,786,239 4,646,183 1,686,151 934,254 10,199,180 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financing uses 141,531 782,287 498,136 259,216 3,166 672,049 1,671,808 1,690,883 (289,864) (499,860) (21,688) (1,669,323) Prior period adjustment/rounding - - (1) - Fundbalancesatbeginningofyear 86,651 376,337 189,685 51,195 91,703 1,379,459 1,527,460 20,463,902 1,862,536 1,896,468 1,590,153 6,770,166 Fund balances at end of year $ 228,182 $ 1,158,624 $ 687,821 $ 310,411 $ 94,869 $ 2,051,507 $ 3,199,268 $ 22,154,785. $ 1,572,672 $ 1,396,608 $ 1,568,465 $ 5,100,843 Fund balance by year received: 2021 $ 228,182 $ 1,158,624 $ 687,821 $ 310,411 $ 94,869 $ 2,051,507 $ 1,940,663 $ 6,477,122 $ 1,572,672 $ 1,186,291 $ 912,566 $ 5,100,843 2020 1,258,605 3,882,375 210,317 655,899 2019 3,979,663 2018 & Prior - 7,815,625 Total fund balances by year received $ 228,182 $ 1,158,624 $ 687,821 $ 310,411 $ 94,869 $ 2,051,507 $ 3,199,268 $ 22,154,785 $ 1,572,672 $ 1,396,608 $ 1,568,465 $ 5,100,843 Cash and investments $ 46,197 $ 676,059 $ 611,655 $ 128,251 $ - $ 1,422,072 $ 2,644,231 $ 35,624,213 $ 599,204 $ 1,066,629 $ 1,347,646 $ 5,096,825 MOE Base Year requirement $ - $ 391,688 $ 92,205 $ 75,147 $ 963,640 $ 2,048,564 $ 937,007 $ 2,398,146 $ 1,498,732 $ 674,811 $ 170,000 $ - Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 9,726,299 $ 8,804,116 $ 1,093,803 $ 15,166,606 $ 29,944,896 $ 11,215,851 $ 13,730,242 $ 38,586,046 $ 5,081,554 $ 521,958 MOE compliance status N/A Met Met Met with use Met with use of Met Met Met Met Met Met N/A of carryover carryover Source: 2021 Agreed -Upon Procedures Measure A Local Streets Roads 5 of 5 6/22/2022 443 AGENDA ITEM 7K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Interstate 15 Ad Hoc Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Delivery Director Sergio Vidal, Chief Financial Officer Stephanie Blanco, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstate 15 Cross -County Toll Segment with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority INTERSTATE 15 AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Interstate 15 Terms of Agreement with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), outlining SBCTA will build and operate the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment within Riverside County, including schedule of payments summarizing annual toll revenue transfers to the Commission; 2) Authorize staff to proceed with developing a cooperative agreement with SBCTA detailing material project terms during design and construction phases, and operations for the proposed 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment; 3) Authorize staff to proceed with initiating the due diligence process with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (US DOT) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) office to review and approve both the toll revenue transfers and sub -lease approach with SBCTA; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to negotiate and execute sole -source contract amendments, as it is in the best interest for both the public and Commission to conduct a non-competitive procurement, as follows: i. Amend the 1-15 Express Lanes contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) as the project/construction management (PCM) in the amount of $1,534,912 (Agreement No. 15-31-001-10) for design support, cooperative agreement development, construction support, finance support and tolling interface coordination; ii. Amend the 1-15 Express Lanes contract with Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc. (Kapsch) as the Toll Service Provider (TSP) in the estimated amount of $50,000 to provide design reviews to assess impacts to the existing tolling system; 5) Approve Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Amendment with $593,300 in Local Reimbursements for consultant costs associated with the delivery and coordination of the 1-15 Cross - County Toll Segment to be reimbursed by SBCTA; Agenda Item 7K 444 6) Authorize the pursuit of approximately $8 million in Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for design and construction phase costs for express lane access improvements near Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road for the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment; and 7) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute all necessary agency agreements or amendments to existing agency agreements for TIFIA due diligence and for SBCTA to operate the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment within Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SBCTA 1-15 Corridor Freight and Express Lanes Project SBCTA is currently delivering the 1-15 Corridor Freight and Express Lanes Project (SBCTA 1-15 Project) to improve freight efficiency, traffic operations, and safety between Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road in Riverside County and Foothill Boulevard in San Bernardino County. The scope of the project will add two express lanes in each direction and auxiliary lanes (Figure 1). The SBCTA 1-15 Project will connect to the existing Commission's 15 Express Lanes at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange (within Riverside County). There is an overlap of approximately 2.2 lane -miles of express lanes between the Commission's 15 Express Lanes and the SBCTA 1-15 Project. SBCTA is leading delivery of the SBCTA 1-15 Project from final design through toll operations. To ensure consistency between the Commission's 15 Express Lanes and the SBCTA I-15 Project, Commission staff and consultants will be reviewing and providing oversight of the final design and construction of the SBCTA 1-15 Project within Riverside County. Agenda Item 7K 445 San Bernardino blared Foul Rancho Cucamonga Warm Gary EFntli Bid e.ena7 '® Bs Ile W Mow Nary Fontana Arno Chi Milts Mall Speedway F na Bt Sao BwnMnInternationa AAe Ontariokrport ' l if a 1' gyp,,, wo qtr rya SAA OEABd(IOtee CO. Ontario MNERSIDF CO. Cale Galan Ranch Rd • I 1' Figure 1: Vicinity Map of SBCTA 15 Project Early Coordination In June 2020, the Commission and SBCTA held a joint ad hoc meeting to discuss the principles of agreement between Commission and SBCTA to advance the SBCTA 1-15 Project. One of the principles was to ensure that the SBCTA 1-15 Project "does no harm" to the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes. As a result of the meeting, the Commission agreed to support SBCTA on their Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) grant application. In December 2020, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) awarded a TCEP grant to SBCTA for the SBCTA 1-15 Project in the amount of $118.7 Million. As part of the grant, SBCTA is required to enter into a project baseline agreement that documents scope, benefits, and schedule of the project. Within that agreement, SBCTA has committed to complete the final design phase and have the project Ready - to -List by May 2023. The CTC programmed the funds for the SBCTA 1-15 Project for state FY 2022/23 and funds must be allocated by June 2023. Evaluation of Alternatives To ensure that the Commission can continue to meet its TIFIA debt service commitments, maintain current levels of operations, maintenance, and toll revenues on the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes, staff conducted an evaluation of impacts of the SBCTA 1-15 Project and alternatives for the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment on the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes. Agenda Item 7K 446 Over the last 18 months, several alternatives were evaluated for the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment that included one or more of the following features: 1) Express lanes access locations — County Line vs. Jurupa Avenue Interchange 2) Operating Responsibility of 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment a. SBCTA Operates b. RCTC Operates c. RCTC/SBCTA Joint Operations 3) Toll Revenue Sharing Criteria used to determine if an alternative was feasible to implement were as follows: 1) The amount of modeled toll revenue impacts to the existing Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes; 2) Traffic operational impacts in both the general purpose and Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes; 3) Geometric impacts to the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes; 4) Level of effort to manage consistent operations and maintenance to the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes; 5) Seamless customer service and messaging between the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes and SBCTA 1-15 Project toll facilities; and 6) TIFIA approval constraints and challenges within the constrained SBCTA grant funding timeline. Commission staff worked collaboratively with SBCTA staff to develop alternatives and evaluate results of the analysis to arrive at the Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative, SBCTA will operate the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment. The Preferred Alternative will include the Jurupa Avenue interchange express lanes access as the northern limits and access to the express lanes at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange (Figure 2). In order for SBCTA to operate the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment, staff proposes to sublease toll facilities and transfer toll operations and maintenance of approximately 2.2 lane -miles of the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes to SBCTA. The existing toll facilities agreement (TFA) between the Commission and Caltrans allows assignment of its rights to another public entity with advance notification, and the Commission would expect to negotiate an amendment to permit a partial sublease. The modeled toll revenue impacts to the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes from this alternative ranges between 2 and 3 percent reduction of the total Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes revenue. Staff developed charts of the toll revenue impacts on an annual basis for review by SBCTA, which are included in the attached 1-15 Terms of Agreement (Attachment 1). SBCTA agreed to pay annually the modeled toll revenue impacts for the duration of the TIFIA loan and the calculated toll revenue associated with the lane -mile reduction of the existing Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes for the remaining life of the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes 50 -year lease. If the Commission chooses to refinance the TIFIA loan prior to maturity, then SBCTA will pay the Agenda Item 7K 447 Commission annually the calculated toll revenue associated with the lane -mile reduction of the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes. In addition, an escalation factor will be applied to the values for the modeled toll and lane -mile reduction revenue charts to account for future inflation. The escalation factor is based on the year -over -year change in Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) re -calculated annually. Benefits of this Preferred Alternative include a defined payment to the Commission for the impact of lost toll revenue due to the transfer of operations. Staff expects the Commission to receive the projected modeled toll revenue annually regardless of specific toll revenue performance of the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment. SBCTA will be responsible for toll revenue operations and maintenance of the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment including the segment within Riverside County. In addition, to ensure seamless customer service and operations, SBCTA will work with Commission staff to closely align their toll policies with the Commission's 15 Express Lanes. As a result of these benefits, staff expects the Commission to be made "whole" and meet its covenants and debt service obligations under the TIFIA Loan. Figure 2: Preferred Alternative — Blue lines within Red Circle Depicts Sublease of RCTC Express Lanes Informal consultation has occurred between staff and the U.S. DOT's TIFIA office regarding the Preferred Alternative. The U.S. DOT's TIFIA office was receptive to the approach of the toll revenue payment schedule and the sublease of the lanes. With approval from the Commission, staff will proceed with initiating the due diligence process with the U.S. DOT's TIFIA office to Agenda Item 7K 448 review and approve both the toll revenue transfers and sub -lease approach with SBCTA, to confirm compliance with the TIFIA loan covenants for the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes. Additional information and analyses may be required by the U.S. DOT's TIFIA office during the due diligence process. 1-15 Terms of Agreement and Cooperative Agreement An 1-15 Terms of Agreement (Attachment 1) was developed by SBCTA and Commission staff to memorialize consensus on the Preferred Alternative to the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment, toll revenue transfer, operations responsibility, and financial responsibilities of each respective agency. A graphic depicting the Preferred Alternative, as well as charts summarizing modeled toll revenue and lane -mile reduction revenue are also included in the 1-15 Terms of Agreement. The 1-15 Terms of Agreement will be the guiding document for development of the SBCTA and Commission cooperative agreement upon Commission approval. The cooperative agreement will contain details of delivery and operations of the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment including design and construction oversight, financial obligations, and operational requirements. Staff will return to the Commission for approval of the cooperative agreement. Next Steps and Required Support Over the coming months staff will be developing the cooperative agreement, as well as various existing agreement amendments, and performing due diligence with the U.S. DOT's TIFIA office in furtherance of the proposed approach for the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment. Staff expects to return to the Commission in the fall of 2022 for approval of the cooperative agreement and other actions that may be required at that time. Commission approved agreements and related actions will be forwarded to the U.S. DOT's TIFIA office for final review and approval. To complete the tasks and deliverables necessary, staff requires the support of several consultants/contractors. Staff is recommending a sole source contract amendment to PTG's 1-15 Express Lanes contract as the PCM to provide necessary planning and oversight services for the extension of the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes to the SBCTA 1-15 Project as it is in the best public interest and best interest of the Commission to conduct a non-competitive procurement. Specifically, PTG has extensive knowledge of the 1-15 Express Lanes including coordinating the development of the modeled revenue impacts, providing strategic advice on key operational and financial elements related to the SBCTA 1-15 Project, and knowledge of the existing toll system and experience coordinating with the current TSP (Kapsch). Key elements of the PCM services include agreements support, plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), plan review of key elements within Riverside County, finance and TIFIA support, and toll coordination to modify the existing toll system within Riverside County. PCM expenditures totaling $1,534,912 are anticipated to be spent as follows: $1,120,000 — FY 2022/23; and $414,912 — FY 2023/24+. Staff is also recommending a sole source contract amendment to Kapsch's 1-15 Express Lanes contract as the TSP as it is in the best public interest and best interest of the Commission to conduct a non-competitive procurement. Specifically, Kapsch is the current TSP for the 1-15 ELP and best Agenda Item 7K 449 positioned to implement necessary changes resulting from the 1-15 SBCTA Project. Key elements of the TSP services include providing design reviews to assess impacts to the existing tolling system within Riverside County. TSP expenditures totaling $50,000 are anticipated to be spent in FY 2022/23. Staff will return to the Commission in the future to request a TSP contract amendment or new TSP contract to implement necessary changes to the existing tolling system within Riverside County to accommodate the SBCTA 1-15 Project. Commission staff will also be relying on various professional services staff in support of project initiatives such as the development of a cooperative agreement, TIFIA due diligence, and other deliverables necessary for coordination with SBCTA. Recurring contracts for project management, financial advisor services, and legal services and an on -call contract for traffic and revenue studies will also be necessary for staff to utilize to complete the cooperative agreement, TIFIA due diligence, and deliverables necessary for coordination with SBCTA. The estimated cost of coordination with SBCTA for delivery of the 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment is approximately $2,611,412 for the period FY 2022/23 thru FY 2026/27, which is detailed as follows: Project Management/Coordination (Bechtel)1 Toll Project/Construction Management (PTG)1 Traffic and Revenue Studies (Stantec)1 Financial Advisor (Feldman Rolapp)1 Legal (Orrick and BB&K)1 Toll Service Provider (Kapsch)1 $276,500 $1,534,912 $60,000 $300,000 $390,000 $50,000 Total $2,611,412 1= partially included in FY2022/2023 budget Anticipated costs to be incurred during FY 2022/23 are $1,556,500, which is $593,300 greater than the budgeted amount of $963,200 for this project. As such, a budget amendment in the amount of $593,300 is requested for FY 2022/23. The remaining project funds will be budgeted during the applicable fiscal year. CMAQ funds will be appropriated upon the award of the grant during a future Commission meeting. Below is an overview of the process in programming funds along with eligible uses: a) These federal formula funds can be used only on certain types of projects including carpool, express, and auxiliary lane projects; b) Approximately $8 million (exact amount to be determined at bid time) will be obligated to SBCTA for use on the improvements beyond the PA/ED concept for the Commission's 1-15 Express Lanes access improvements and associated features on the 1-15 at the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange. Agenda Item 7K 450 FISCAL IMPACT: As noted above, anticipated consultant costs related to project development for FY 2022/23 is $1,556,500, which will be reimbursed by SBCTA. The FY 2022/23 Budget included $963,200 for these efforts, with the following funding source: • Local Other (for Consultant Support) $963,200 The toll project/construction management and TSP consultant contracts are anticipated to be $1,584,912. A budget amendment for FY 2022/23 in the amount of $593,300, is requested to fund anticipated costs related to consultant support. Funding source for the budget amendment is as follows: • Local Other (to be received from SBCTA) $593,300 During the fall of 2022, staff will return to the Commission for approval of the cooperative agreement between the Commission and SBCTA, which will include the Commission's initial request for reimbursement from SBCTA. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24+ Amount: $1,556,500 $1,054,912 Source of Funds: Local Reimbursements Budget Adjustment: Yes GL/Project Accounting No.: Anticipated Spend during FY 2022-23, $1,556,500: Existing Funding— $963,200 Proposed Budget amendment - $593,300 Existing Funding — FY 2022-23: 003050 various 00000 0000 268 31 various — $963,200 Budget Amendment: - $593,300 003050 416 41608 0000 268 3141204 (Sources) $593,300 003050 81601 00000 0000 268 3181601 (Uses) $593,300 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/17/2022 Attachments: 1) 1-15 Terms of Agreement including Modeled Toll Revenue Transfer Charts 2) Draft Parsons Transportation Group Agreement No. 15-31-001-10 Agenda Item 7K 451 ATTACHMENT 1 15 Terms of Agreement — SBCTA Build and Operate Cross -County Toll Segment from Jurupa Street to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road 1. SBCTA a. Designs, Constructs, Operates, Maintains b. Collects all toll revenue c. SBCTA will adopt policies and take appropriate administrative steps to operate, including toll collection and violations enforcement, within Riverside County d. Agree to implement and maintain road operating policies consistent with those on RCTC 15 Express Lanes to ensure consistent operations. e. Coordinate customer education and marketing to ensure consistent messaging with the RCTC 15 Express Lanes. f. Responsible for toll system design and implementation including roadside and back office g. Responsible for operating back -office system including collection of toll revenue and payment of costs h. Responsible for providing traffic operations center surveillance and management i. Responsible for violation processing, including associated violation revenue and processing costs j. Responsible for incident management k. Responsible for CHP and FSP contracts 1. Responsible for 50 -year lease requirements including long-term maintenance m. Avoids or minimizes negative financial impact to existing RCTC 15 Express Lanes Project (ELP) debt and projected toll revenue i. During Construction — Implement lane closure table based on actual 2022 RCTC 15 ELP toll revenue by segment escalated to year of construction. SBCTA will reimburse RCTC for estimated lost toll revenue for approved express lane closures of the RCTC 15 ELP and liquidated damages for unapproved express lanes closures of the RCTC 15 ELP. ii. During Operations — Recognizing the value associated with the existing RCTC 15 ELP express lanes to be transferred to SBCTA as well as the need to avoid negative financial impact to existing RCTC 15 ELP financing, SBCTA to transfer toll revenue to RCTC as follows: 1. From the opening of the SBCTA 1-15 Contract 1 Project, expected in Summer 2026, through the duration of the existing RCTC 15 ELP TIFIA Loan Agreement —Transfer toll revenue to RCTC equivalent to forecasted RCTC 15 ELP TIFIA Loan Agreement system revenue reduction a. Toll revenue transfer per RCTC toll revenue transfer Table 1 dated 4/15/2022 b. Payment for transferred toll revenue to be completed by SBCTA on an annual basis. Transferred toll revenue payments shall be made 45 days in advance of scheduled RCTC 15 ELP TIFIA debt service payment. 15 June 2022 452 2. From the end of the RCTC 15 ELP TIFIA Loan Agreement, defined as the earlier of any refinance or retirement of the existing loan or the loan maturity date of June 1, 2055, through the duration of RCTC 15 ELP lease term with Caltrans expiring in April 2071— Transfer toll revenue to RCTC equivalent to forecasted toll revenue corresponding to transferred tolling distance in RCTC's Segment 4 a. Toll revenue transfer per RCTC lane -mile reduction Table 2 dated 4/15/2022 b. Payment for transferred toll revenue to be completed by SBCTA on an annual basis. Transferred toll revenue payments shall be made 45 days in advance of scheduled RCTC 15 ELP TIFIA debt service payment. 3. The transferred toll revenue currently expressed in 2021 dollars will be escalated by the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Riverside - San Bernardino -Ontario MSA annually to determine the actual transferred amount in the year it is paid (Year of Expenditure, YOE). 4. During operations of the SBCTA 1-15 Contract 1 Project, SBCTA will reimburse RCTC for estimated lost toll revenue for approved express lane closures of the RCTC 15 ELP. n. Funds needed modifications to the RCTC 15 ELP toll system (signage, back office) required as part of the implementation of the SBCTA I-15 Contract 1 Project. o. Funds mutually agreed -upon RCTC project development consultant costs starting from January 1, 2021, excluding RCTC staff time and SBCTA design and construction costs associated with Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange improvements beyond the PA/ED concept. p. Maintains cost overrun risk for construction cost of Project, except as noted under RCTC items b. and c. q. Assume all responsibilities of RCTC under the terms of the Toll Facilities Agreement (TFA) between Caltrans and RCTC dated September 29, 2016, except those provisions that apply to debt service or financing of the RCTC I-15 Express Lanes as defined in the agreement, for those portions of the RCTC I-15 Express Lanes north of approximately Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, as shown in Figure 1. RCTC a. Sublease to SBCTA those portions of the RCTC I-15 Express Lanes north of approximately Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, as shown in Figure 1, for complete operations and maintenance, including toll setting and collection, for the duration of the RCTC lease with Caltrans. b. Funds SBCTA design and construction costs for improvements at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road beyond PA/ED concept excluding SBCTA staff time. Design costs will be reimbursed by RCTC at bid time, based on actuals. Construction costs will be based on an agreed lump sum price determined at bid time. 15 June 2022 453 c. Maintains construction cost overrun risk for a changed condition directly attributed to improvements at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road interchange improvements beyond PA/ED concept. d. Maintains construction cost overrun risk for a changed condition directly attributed to any future betterments identified by RCTC for inclusion in the Project. e. During operations of the SBCTA I-15 Contract 1 Project, RCTC will reimburse SBCTA for estimated lost toll revenue for approved express lane closures of the SBCTA I-15 Contract 1 Project. DEFINITIONS Cross -County Toll Segment: Toll segment that spans approximately 3.12 miles from Jurupa Street in San Bernardino County to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road in Riverside County. Under the SBCTA Operate approach, the segment will be known as Segment 1 of the SBCTA 15 Express Lanes. 1-15 Contract 1 Project: SBCTA project that would add one to two express lanes extending approximately 8 miles from Foothill Boulevard in San Bernardino County to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road in Riverside County. Under the SBCTA Operate approach, the Project will consist of two tolling segments. Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Interchange Improvements — Difference between PA/ED concept and RCTC agreed final approved design concept in the vicinity of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road. RCTC 15 Express lanes — One to two express lanes from Cajalco Road in the city of Corona to just south of State Route 60 on Interstate 15. NOTE Terms subject to USDOT and Caltrans approval of RCTC 15 ELP sublease of express lanes north of Cantu- Galleano Ranch Road to SBCTA. 15 June 2022 454 Figure 1 Subleased Express Lanes Note 1 Notes: 1) Subleased lanes from RCTC to SBCTA are the Blue Lanes north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. 15 June 2022 455 Example Revenue Transfer Calculation w/ CPI Adjustment TOLL REVENUE TRANSFER TABLES April 15, 2022 Fiscal Year TABLE 1 - 1.812 Modelled approach - (2021$) TABLE 2 - Lane/Mile Approach - (2021$) 2026 $954,986 $931,321 2027 $993,275 $1,041,500 2028 $1,036,069 $1,174,821 2029 $1,046,205 $1,268,775 2030 $993,275 $1,261,051 2031 $935,841 $1,252,376 2032 $926,832 $1,334,715 2033 $908,813 $1,422,472 2034 $884,037 $1,516,022 2035 $917,822 $1,301,918 2036 $976,383 $1,049,166 2037 $994,401 $1,068,706 2038 $1,012,420 $1,088,592 2039 $1,031,565 $1,108,852 2040 $1,050,710 $1,129,459 2041 $1,069,854 $1,150,497 2042 $1,090,125 $1,171,882 2043 $1,110,396 $1,193,670 2044 $1,130,667 $1,215,948 2045 $1,150,938 $1,238,514 2046 $1,172,335 $1,261,599 2047 $1,193,732 $1,285,058 2048 $1,215,129 $1,308,979 2049 $1,238,779 $1,333,332 2050 $1,261,302 $1,358,117 2051 $1,279,321 $1,377,455. 2052 $1,292,834 $1,391,318 2053 $1,305,222 $1,405,267 2054 $1,317,610 $1,419,331 2055 $1,331,124 $1,433,568 2056 $1,344,638 $1,447,920 2057 _ _ $1,358,152 $1,462,446 2058 $1,371,666 $1,477,144 2059 $1,385,180 $1,491,929 2060 $1,399,820 $1,506,886 2061 $1,413,334 $1,522,017 2062 $1,426,848 $1,537,263 2063 $1,442,614 $1,552,652 2064 $1,456,128 $1,568,215 2065 $1,470,768 $1,583,980 2066 $1,485,408 $1,599,831 2067 $1,500,048 $1,615,855 2068 $1,514,688 $1,632,109 2069 $1,530,455 $1,648,450 2070 $1,547,347 $1,664,964 FY Multipler CPI CPI YOE Revenue Transfer (YOE$) 2021 3.500% 1.000 $ 2022 4.200% 1.042 $ - 2023 4.500% 1.089 $ - 2024 4.000% 1.132 $ - 2025 3.800% 1.175 $ - 2026 3.500% 1.217 $ 1,161,855 2027 3.200% 1.256 $ 1,247,109 2028 3.000% 1.293 $ 1,339,864 2029 2.700% 1.328 $ 1,389,502 2030 2.500% 1.361 $ 1,352,184 2031 3.000% 1.402 $ 1,756,056 2032 3.300% 1.448 $ 1,933,270 2033 3.400% 1.498 $ 2,130,434 2034 3.500% 1.550 $ 2,350,013 2035 3.200% 1.600 $ 2,082,706 Baseline Year = 2021 Present Year CPI Multiplier = Previous Year CPI Multiplier * Present Year CPI For illustrative purposes assume refinancing in 2030 456 ATTACHMENT 2 Agreement No. 15-31-001-10 AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE 1-15 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 10 to the Agreement for project and construction management services is made and entered into as of this day of 2022, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC., an Illinois corporation ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant entered into an agreement, dated April 8, 2015, for the purpose of providing project and construction management services for the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (the "Master Agreement") for a maximum not to exceed ("NTE") amount of $50,625,807. 2.2 Senate Bill 132 was enacted on April 28, 2017 and provides, among other things, $180 million for new tolled express lanes connectors from the 91 Express Lanes to the northern portion of the 1-15 (15/91 ELC). Funds under SB132 are available for encumbrance and liquidation only until June 30, 2023. 2.3 AB 115 was enacted on June 27, 2017 and provides additional project delivery authority to Commission to ensure cost-effective and timely delivery of the 15/91 ELC. Additional project delivery authority includes, but is not limited to, amendments to any existing 1-15 Express Lanes Project or 91 Express Lanes Project contract. This amendment is authorized pursuant to AB 115. 2.4 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Agreement No. 15-31- 001-02-A, an amendment to the Master Agreement, dated November 1, 2017 in order to provide additional engineering and environmental services to complete the Caltrans supplemental Project Report and Environmental Document revalidation for the 15/91 ELC. 2.5 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated March 28, 2018, ("Amendment No. 3") in order to extend the term, to provide project and construction management services for the 15/91 ELC, to update the indemnification provision 457 pursuant to SB 496, and to include certain additional standard federal provisions. 2.6 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 4 to the Master Agreement, dated January 29, 2019, to provide design refinement, including geometrical and structural changes, and additional soundwall studies and revisions mandated by Caltrans District 8 Noise Group to obtain environmental approval of the 15/91 ELC, and to provide additional funding therefor. 2.7 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 5 to the Master Agreement, dated June 26, 2019, to provide additional services required to obtain environmental approval of the 15/91 ELC, primarily related to unanticipated additional noise study work, and to provide additional funding for such services. 2.8 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement, dated July 26, 2019, to provide public information services and additional compensation for such services related to the 1-15 Express Lanes Project (1-15 ELP). 2.9 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 7 to the Master Agreement, dated October 9, 2020, to extend the term and provide additional project and construction management services required for the 15/91 ELC, and to provide additional funding for such services. 2.10 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 8 to the Master Agreement, dated February 28, 2022, to provide additional environmental studies, final design, and construction management services required for the 1-15 Interim Corridor Operations Project (1-15 ICOP), and to provide additional funding for such services. 2.11 The Commission and the Consultant entered into Amendment No. 9 to the Master Agreement, dated June 2, 2022, to update the cost for environmental services, to provide supplemental public outreach services, and to provide additional funding for construction support services required for the 1-15 ICOP. 2.12 The Commission and the Consultant now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to provide planning and general oversight of the extension of the 1-15 Express Lanes to the San Bernardino County Line. 3. TERMS 3.1 The Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, shall be 458 amended to include planning and general oversight services, as further detailed in Exhibit "A", attached to this Amendment No. 10 and incorporated herein by reference. 3.2 Compensation for Services under this Amendment No. 10 shall be in accordance with the provisions governing fees and payment set forth in Section 3.5 of Amendment No. 3, and in an amount not to exceed the values shown in the cost proposal for this Amendment No. 10, as summarized in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3.2.1 In addition to the allowable incurred costs, Commission shall pay Consultant a fixed fee of One Hundred Thousand Thirty -Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred Seventy -Eight Dollars ($138,878) ("Fixed Fee") for Services under this Amendment No. 10. The Fixed Fee is nonadjustable, except in the event of a significant change in the Scope of Work, and such adjustment is made by written amendment. 3.2.2 The total amount payable by Commission, including the Fixed Fee, for all Services completed under this Amendment No. 10 shall not exceed One Million, Five Hundred Thirty -Four Thousand, Nine Hundred Twelve Dollars ($1,534,912). 3.3 Services under this Amendment No. 10 shall be compensated in accordance with the cost proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 3.4 Except as previously amended and as amended by this Amendment No. 10, all provisions of the Master Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 10. 3.5 This Amendment No. 10 shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.6 This Amendment No. 10 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.7 A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 10 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of this Amendment No. 10 for all purposes. This Amendment No. 10 may be signed using an electronic signature. 459 [Signatures on following page] 460 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 15-31-001-10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GROUP, INC. By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature Name Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: ` ATTEST: By: � By: Best Best & Krieger LLPilito General Counsel Its: 461 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [ATTACHED] 462 Sensitive EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK The Offeror shall assist the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") in the planning and general oversight of the extension of the existing I- 15 Express Lanes from Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road to the San Bernardino/Riverside County Line ("Project") being implemented by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority ("SBCTA"). Offeror will provide the Commission with the agreed upon staff, resources, and expertise to provided services as required by the Commission. The Scope of Work includes a level of effort generally associated providing oversight a project being implemented by a third party within influence of a Commission facility. Work may include such things as general coordination, development and review of interagency agreements, risk assessment, plan reviews, toll system planning and implementation oversight, construction change order reviews, and administration services. The SOW was written with the intent to describe most if not all services to be provided by the Offeror. However, Commission may require he Offeror to provide additional services not specifically identified in this SOW. The Offeror will be required to provide assistance to the Commission and to provide these additional services. A. Management - TASK 100 Under the Commission's direction, provide support for agency agreements, Project financing assistance, toll system planning and installation, plan reviews and general project coordination. A.1 Management Under the Commission's direction: • Represent Commission for general coordination and communication between the Commission, SBCTA, the existing 1-15 Express Lanes Toll Operator ("Kapsch"), Caltrans and other consultants; • Coordinate and oversee Project activities and deliverables performed by Kapsch; and • Cooperate and coordinate with other Commission consultants, financial advisors, legal advisors, and contractors to achieve completion of the Project development activities. Scope of Work A-2 463 Sensitive A.2 Administration Provide administrative personnel to provide as -needed general administration for the duration of the Project. Administrative personnel responsibilities may include: • Schedule meetings; prepare meeting agendas, minutes, and action items. • Provide document control services throughout the Project duration. • General administrative support. A.4 Agency Agreements and Stakeholder Coordination • Work with the Commission to review, create, develop, negotiate, and execute agency agreements required for the Project, including but not limited to the following: o Cooperative Agreement (SBCTA/RCTC) o Tolling Operations Agreement (SBCTA/RCTC) o Toll Facilities Agreement (RCTC/Caltrans) o Express Lane Sublease Agreement (RCTC/SBCTA) • Other agency agreements as necessary. B. Design Management — TASK 200 Offeror shall provide oversight -level review of the plans being developed by SBCTA for the Project. The reviews will generally be focused on the areas of greatest potential impact to the on -going operations of the existing RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes and those areas of potential cost risk to the Commission, including such things as utilities, railroad coordination, traffic operations, maintenance of traffic during construction, striping and signage, and tolling infrastructure. Review the Project plans developed by SBCTA for consistency with the existing RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes. The reviews will be performed at the 65%, 95% and 100% plan development milestones and include coordination with SBCTA to address and resolve any review comments. The reviews will primarily be focused on the following key areas: B.1 Signage and Striping • Review the Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD's), exceptions to Mandatory and Advisory Design Standards, and striping and signage plans and other documents developed previously by SBCTA. Scope of Work A-3 464 Sensitive Review for consistency with the existing RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes and the current developing standards for express lane operations. Recommend any changes or modifications in the SBCTA plans. B.2 Tolling Infrastructure (IDD Compliance) • Review the plans for conformance with the RCTC provided Infrastructure Design Document, with an emphasis on the civil components of the IDD, including but not limited to conduit location and sizing, electrical and communication lines, roadside toll equipment location and sizing, and toll gantry requirements. B.3 MOT and Staging • Review the plans for the Maintenance of Traffic and construction staging to identify and key impacts to the existing RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes. Recommend any alternatives or suggestions to minimize impacts. • Review any significant changes to the Project proposed by SBCTA during construction. B.4 Miscellaneous Civil and Structures • Review the plans outside the direct impact to the RCTC I-15 Express Lanes. The level of review for this effort will be at the "fatal flaw" level and look at major cost risk items to the Commission. Provide recommendations on potential cost or schedule reductions to the SBCTA developed plans. B.5 Specification Review • Review the developed Project specifications for key interfaces with the RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes. Review identified key risk areas; and if appropriate, recommended potential revises in the drafted text. • Review for consistency with the RCTC provided IDD. • Analyze and recommend any RCTC 1-15 Express Lane closure fees and appropriate liquidated damages for non -approved closures. B.6 Ingress/Egress Option Review • Review the SBCTA proposed ingress/egress locations for conformance with project geometric standards, key lessons learned Scope of Work A-4 465 Sensitive from existing operations and integration with key tolling design parameters. B.7 Railroad Coordination • Assist in reviewing key railroad interface locations, and if appropriate, recommended alternatives to address key risk and cost exposures. C. Tolling Services — TASK 300 Offeror shall provide management and oversight for implementation of the modifications necessary to the existing toll system. Services consist primarily of coordination with the existing toll services provider, Kapsch, to modify the necessary roadside equipment, operating software changes, testing and start-up, and any back -office changes to implement the change. C.1 Tolling System Review and Development • Provide coordination with Kapsch to assist with coordination and integration with the procurement, design, installation, roadside construction, and testing. • Development and coordination of three proposed Kapsch amendments to modify the existing RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes. Amendment number #1 is expected to consist of Kapsch review of the SBCTA developed plans at the 95% level of confirm compliance with the IDD. Amendment number #2 is expected to include the roadside equipment modification, as well as any required back -office software modifications. Amendment #3 is expected to cover the operation and maintenance cost for the express lane extension to the county line. • Coordinate the review of design, submittals, design plans, and shop drawings between the SBCTA contractor and Kapsch. D. Funding and Financing — TASK 400 Offeror shall assist and support the Commission and its consultants in development of the funding and finance approach for the Project. These services include but are not limited to: D.1 Finance Support • In coordination with the Commission, traffic and revenue consultants, financial advisors, and legal advisors, participate in development and finalization of any alternatives analysis. Scope of Work A-5 466 Sensitive • Prepare updates of the 1-15 capital cost and operating cost estimates. Prepare updates of the toll customer account fee revenue estimate and "non -toll transaction" revenue estimate based on assumed toll policies and business rules. Prepare toll system replacement schedule cost estimates. These estimates of costs and revenues support the Commission's financial model. D.2 TIFIA Approval • Prepare or assist in the preparation of various technical supporting documents or reports related to the impacts to the existing funding and financing that may be required by the TIFIA office, FHWA, Caltrans, investors, and others. E. Contract Management and Procurement Services — TASK 500 Provide contract management to support development of the Kapsch amendments and review of major change orders proposed by SBCTA during constriction. E.1 Contract Management • Develop the Kapsch amendments that facilitate modification of the RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes. • Review Kapsch payment applications, for compliance to contract commercial requirements. Identify areas of concern and resolve with Kapsch before recommending payment to the Commission. • Identify the amount of the final payment due Kapsch and assist Commission with processing any final contract changes and the resolution of any claims. Obtain evidence of certification of all lien releases, transfer of title to appropriate agencies, and certification of delivery of final record drawings where appropriate. • Review and analyze SBCTA proposed construction change orders as per terms of the final executed cooperative agreement. Scope of Work A-6 467 Sensitive F. Project Controls — TASK 600 Provide management, administration, and oversight services related to the cost, scheduling, estimating, and document management requirements for Offeror's contract, and the contract between the Commission and Kapsch, including the necessary plans, procedures, tools, processes, and tasks for ongoing planning, budgeting, and control of the Project. The specific Project controls activities planned include the following: F.1 Controls Management • Develop and maintain a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) cost structure to segregate all PCM costs. • Prepare monthly invoices with adequate budget allocation for actual costs incurred; check for compliance to contract compensation requirements; monitor charges to established WBS codes to support cost control and reporting; verify appropriateness of charges; and respond to Commission questions or comments on invoicing. Develop an invoice structure to be approved by the Commission that fully segregates all the costs between the PCM projects. • Develop budgeting for work tasks for Offeror activities; assign tasks against the WBS; monitor labor charges and expenses for validity and proper coding; and provide progress and reporting support for internal management and client needs. • Review monthly invoices/progress payments submitted by Kapsch as to compliance with contract requirements. • Review detailed SBCTA provided schedules for consistency with the Kapsch installation, testing, and startup periods. F.2 Document Controls Management • Provide and maintain a Commission -Offeror document collaboration portal for all Project communications. • Provide document management and control of all Toll Services Provider, and other contractor submittals and correspondence. This activity will include all Project documentation for design review, Requests for Information (RFIs), and all other submittals. Maintain the tools, filing, storage, and retention of Project documentation. • Prepare final accounting and closeout reports of all reporting and document control systems. Organize all pertinent data, purge all files, and send to document control. Scope of Work A-7 468 Sensitive F.3 Cost Estimating • Provide a review of the SBCTA provided cost estimate at or around the submission of 65% complete plans. This higher -level review is meant to facilitate any required finance plan to support a loan payback approach. • Offeror shall develop a full independent cost estimate of the SBCTA developed plans and specifications. It is expected this will occur at the 95% plan level. Reconcile any major quantity or cost differentials SBCTA. • Review construction change orders proposed by SBCTA greater than $200,000. G. Construction Oversight — TASK 700 Provide construction oversight services consisting of constructability reviews during design and review of major changes proposed by SBCTA during construction. G.1 Constructability Reviews • Perform reviews of the plans developed by SBCTA at 65%, 95% and 100% for the interface between the tolling infrastructure and the tolling collection system to be installed by Kapsch. • Review the plans for construction staging plans and planned closures and provide recommendations to minimize impacts to existing express lane operations. G.2 Change Order Review • Review construction change orders proposed by SBCTA greater than $200,000 and provide recommendations to the Commission Project Manager. • Assess any potential construction changes and their associated impact to operations of the existing RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes. • Coordinate construction interface issues between SBCTA and Kapsch. Scope of Work A-8 469 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [ATTACHED] 470 Sensitive RCTC PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT --""-- Executive Summary 1-15 NEXT PCM Fee Estimate June 8, 2022 The Project and Construction Management (PCM) consultant shall assist the Commission in providing oversight services for the 1-15 Express Lanes being connected to the SBCTA proposed Express Lanes. Key elements of the PCM services include agreement support, PS&E plan review of key elements within Riverside County, finance and TIFIA support, and toll coordination to modify the existing ELP system within Riverside County. Fee Estimate Basis and Assumptions Scope and Price Basis: The basis for the fee estimate is based on the understanding that RCTC will be providing project "oversight" for key work elements developed by SBCTA within Riverside County. The PCM level of effort is expected to be far less than past projects led by RCTC. The Fee Estimate has been formatted to align with the Project Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) consistent with the existing 1-15 ELP. Key Risk Areas for the Estimate: Unlike the past PCM work where a constant staff level has been provided throughout, the effort for the 1-15 NEXT PCM services will be task based with cost variability depending on the level of effort required by RCTC. The following are some key risk areas to the fee estimate that could vary: 1. CapEx Cost Risk: The fee estimate is based on the current approach that the CapEx line items are fixed and will be managed by the agency overseeing that particular line item. If the final CapEx reimbursement approach is for RCTC to agree to pay "actuals" for all line items, the level of required oversight may increase depending on the RCTC risk tolerance. 2. Geometric Options: SBCTA is the project sponsor and PS&E lead. The fee estimate assumed a relatively minimal level of effort for analysis as this work will be performed by SBCTA. RCTC led reviews, modeling and geometric development could increase the required effort. 3. Financial Analysis: The current approach assumes one major CapEx and OpEx update upon SBCTA completion of the 65% plans. 4. Cost Estimating: The estimate provided at 65% will be a review of the provided quantities and pricing will be "spot checked" for high -risk items. A fully independent developed cost estimate TEAM PROVIDING INNOVATION THROUGH COLLABORATION 471 Sensitive RCTC PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT --""-- at 95%, including quantity and cost reconciliation with the SBCTA has been included as requested in the May 11, 2021 PCM cost estimate. 5. Kapsch Tolling Amendments: The current estimate assumes that the existing RCTC I-15 Express Lanes operator, Kapsch, will be modifying their existing system to accommodate SBCTA operations connecting near Cantu Galleano Ranch Road. A reasonable of time has been allocated to the development of the required amendments/change orders and oversight of the installation of the additional toll point. Basic Schedule Below are some assumed key project milestones: Milestone Expected Date 65% PS&E 4/12/22 95% PS&E 9/7/22 100% PS&E 2/13/23 Project RTL 5/15/23 Construction Award 11/1/23 Construction NTP 1/15/24 Construction Complete 6/1/26 Cost Estimate and Staffing: 1. Staff are assumed, for the most part, to be working from the ELC project office, and thus a field OH rate will be applied. Staff located outside the ELC office will be billed at the previously agreed -to home office rate. 2. Construction Support services after RTL are assumed to be part-time and located at a home office, therefore, will be billed at the home office OH rate. (Note: RTL aligns roughly with completion of the ELC, thus for estimating simplicity RTL is chosen for the transition from field to the home -office OH rate.) 3. The Total Cost estimate $1,534,912, including escalation and fixed fee. 4. The cost estimate includes approximately $250k of sunk costs to date. 5. Cost Estimate Notes: a. Current hourly rates were used for known staff. For others, a general labor classification rate was used. b. Current fixed overhead rates used on the 1-15 ELP (field and home) were used. An escalation factor of 3.5 percent was applied to the labor rates to estimate the total project budget. c. A profit rate of 10 percent was used to compute the fee; TEAM PROVIDING INNOVATION THROUGH COLLABORATION *20 472 Sensitive RCTC PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Fee and Manhour Summary: Task Man -Hours Fee Estimate TASK 100 - Management 1544 $387,243 TASK 200 - Design 694 $143,982 TASK 300 - Tolling 988 $215,723 TASK 400 - Finance 540 $139,742 TASK 500 - Contracts 120 $18,530 TASK 600 - Project Controls 2374 $287,746 TASK 700 - Construction 852 $215,775 TASK 800 - Other Direct Costs (ODC's) $38,970 Sub Total 7112 $1,447,710 Escalation $87,202 TOTAL 7112 $1,534,912 TEAM PROVIDING INNOVATION THROUGH COLLABORATION *3a 473 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INTERSTATE 15 CROSS -COUNTY TOLL SEGMENT WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY July 13, 2022 Stephanie Blanco, Capital Projects Manager Project Background Interstate 15 Corridor Freight and Express Lanes Project (SBCTA) Location: Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road to Foothill Boulevard Scope: Two express lanes in each direction + auxiliary lanes - Continuous Express Lanes - $118.7M SB-1 TCEP grant - Ready to List by May 2023 - Funding obligated by June 2023 I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment RANCHO CUCAMONGA (PkN (PM 04.47) SCRRAYETROLIMK (PM 03.05) (PM 02.56) ONTARIO X101.01) JURUPA ST 51.95) (PM 51.36) /AVERSION DR (PM 51.26) M 50.13) ONTARIO MITCR R/ (PM 49.36) EASTVALE (PM.&26) LIIIDI(TE AVE (PM 06.12) (PM 05.84) (PM 05.65) W FOOTHILL BLVD •••(PIA 05.29) • AIRPORT OR PHILADELPHIA ET (PM 04.38) WHITMAN AVE FONTANA SAN.EDDADDIIO AVE ONTAROMLLE PIIWY !LOVED AVE JURUPA VALLEY PM %E x5 t-15 Post MIN Express Lanes to be Constructed ay sec` r- Eslstaq Ausdnry Lines Austlar5 Lane AObtlons Proposed Ingress Proposed Egress * Combined Ingress Egress w Weave Lane • ComWrwf Ingress Egress Project Background 1-15 Cross -County Toll Segment - 3 miles (2 miles in Riverside county) - Northern limit: Jurupa Avenue - Southern limit: Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road - 2.2 lane -miles of Commission 15 Express Lanes I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Evaluation of Alternatives Alternatives Evaluated • Express Lanes Access Locations — County Line vs. Jurupa Avenue Interchange • Operating Responsibility - SBCTA Operates - RCTC Operates - RCTC/SBCTA Joint Operations Factors considered to determine preferred alternative • Modeled toll revenue impacts • Traffic operational impacts • Geometry • Consistent operations and maintenance • Seamless customer service • TIFIA approval constraints and challenges I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Preferred Alternative «< SBCTA Builds and Operates »> SBCTA • collects toll revenue, responsible for operations and maintenance • operate consistently with Commission's 15 Express Lanes • reimburse Commission for modeled revenue loss through 50 -year lease • reimburse Commission for revenue loss during construction • reimburse Commission consultant costs Commission • allow SBCTA to operate in Riverside county • sublease 2.2 lane -miles of Commission's 15 Express Lanes to SBCTA • pay for access improvements at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road (approx. $8 million) I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Preferred Alternative Benefits of «< SBCTA Builds and Operates »> alternative • Defined payment annually to Commission • Payment received annually regardless of performance • Seamless customer service and operations on the 1-15 Express Lanes • Commission will meet TIFIA loan covenants and debt service obligations • U.S. DOT TIFIA office receptive to this approach I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Next Steps 1. Cooperative Agreement • Design and Construction Oversight • Financial Obligations • Operational Requirements 2. U.S. DOT's TIFIA Office due diligence • Start formal coordination • Sub -lease agreement with Caltrans and SBCTA • Amend associated TIFIA loan related documents I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Consultant Support Cost* Project Management/Coordination (Bechtel)1 Toll Project/Construction Management (PTG)3 Traffic and Revenue Studies (Stantec)2 Financial Advisor (Fieldman Rolapp)1 Legal (Orrick and BB&K)1 Toll Service Provider (Kapsch)3 Total $276,500 $1,534,912 $60,000 $300,000 $390,000 $50,000 $2,611,412 *Through FY 26/27 (does not include future TSP cost to be reimbursed by SBCTA) 'Recurring Contract 20n -Call Contract 3Sole-source Contract Amendment Note: Commission consultant costs to be reimbursed by SBCTA I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Fiscal Impact FY 2022/2023 Budget $963,200 FY 2022/2023 Anticipated Cost Budget Amendment $1,556,500 $593,300 (to be reimbursed by SBCTA) I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Staff Recommendations 1. Approve the 1-15 Terms of Agreement with SBCTA; 2. Authorize Staff to proceed with developing a Cooperative Agreement with SBCTA; 3. Authorize Staff to proceed with the due diligence process with the U.S. DOT's TIFIA office; 4. Authorize sole -source contract amendments: PTG $1,534,912 Kapsch $50,000 5. Approve FY 2022/23 Budget Amendment of $593,300; 6. Authorize pursuit of $8 million of Federal CMAQ funds for access improvements at CGR; 7. Authorize execution of necessary agency agreements or amendments. I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUESTIONS & FEEDBACK I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Revenue Transfer Payment Table TOU REVENUE TRANSFER TABLES April 15 2022 fisCaI lllOr TABLE 1 74.8 MOCNc ie opprooch (20215) TABLE 2 • lork/Mue Approocn- (20215) 2026 5954 986 5931,321 202' s;93 275 11.041,500 2028 11.03E 069 11,174,821 2029 11,046.205 51.268.775 2030 5993.275 11,261.051 203' 5935.841 11,252,376 2032 5926,832 11,334.715 2339 5908,613 11.422,472 2034 5884.037 11.516.022 2035 5917.822 11,301,918 2336 5;'6.383 51.049.166 2337 : • ; 4 401 11,068,706 2038 11.012.420 11,066.592 2039 11,031,565 11,106.652 2040 11,050, 710 11,129 4!: 2341 11,069,854 11.15C 4: 2042 11,090.125 11,171,882 2343 11,110 396 11,193.670 2044 11.130 667 11,215.946 2045 11,150.938 11,236,514 2046 11.172335 11,261.599 2047 11,193,732 11.283,0.W 2048 11,215,129 5 1.308,979 2049 51.236.779 S 1,333,332 11.261.302 11,358,117 205' 51,279.321 11,377,455 2052 11.292..834 11,391,318 2053 11,305,222 11,105 267 2054 11,317,610 11,419 331 2055 11,331 124 11,433.565 2056 11,344 638 51,447,920 205' 11,358.152 11,462.446 2058 11,371,666 51,477,144 2059 11.385.180 11,491 929 2060 51.399,820 11.506.886 2061 51,413,334 11.522.017 2062 11,426,848 51,537,263 2063 11,442.614 51,552652 2'364 51,456.128 11.546,215 2065 11,470,768 S 1.383,960 2066 11,185 408 51,599,831 2'06' 11,500,048 5 1,615.855 2068 51.314.688 11,632.109 2369 51,530,455 11,648 450 2070 51.547,347 11,664 964 I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment Revenue Transfer Payment Table lxample Revenue Transfer Calculation w/ CPI Adjustment FY CPI CPI YOE Multipler Revenue Transfer (YOE$) 2021 3.500% 1.000 $ - 2022 4.200% 1.042 $ - 202 3 4.500% 1.089 $ - 2024 4.000% 1.132 $ - 2025 3.800% 1.175 $ - 2026 3.500% 1.217 $ 1,161,855 2027 3.200% 1.256 $ 1,247,109 2028 3.000% 1.293 $ 1,339,864 2029 2.700% 1.328 $ 1,389,502 2030 2.500% 1.361 $ 1,352,184 2031 3.000% 1.402 $ 1,756,056 2032 3.300% 1.448 $ 1,933,270 2033 3.400% 1.498 $ 2,130,434 2034 3.500% 1.550 $ 2,350,013 2035 3.200% 1.600 $ 2,082,706 I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment 1> Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Improvements tea_ _� ■ - -- ., -� g , ;1411Pr -1- I-15 Cross -County Toll Segment 14 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee David Knudsen, External Affairs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The Legislature is expected to pass the 2022-23 Budget by the constitutional deadline of midnight, June 15, 2022, or forfeit a portion of their salaries. As of the writing of this staff report, the estimated surplus of $68 billion and discussions of how to avoid the Gann Limit are expected to dominate negotiations between the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. As with previous budget cycles, it is anticipated legislators will continue to negotiate outstanding budget details past the June 15 deadline, to be incorporated into budget trailer bills that implement the topline spending programs per agency, or a "budget bill junior," to revise the Budget Act of 2022-23. Staff continued work to support the Inland Empire Caucus' budget request for $2.2 billion for transportation projects in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Additionally, Assemblymember Kelly Seyarto (Murrieta) has agreed to submit RCTC's request for $3 million to fund the next phase of the 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension. A determination to fund these projects may be reached any time before the legislative session concludes on August 31, 2022, either in the Budget Act or a budget trailer bill. Assembly Bill 2344 (Friedman) Oppose Unless Amended — Action taken based on platform On June 3, 2022, Executive Director Anne Mayer sent a letter to Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Laura Friedman, proposing amendments to her bill, AB 2344, with the caveat that RCTC will oppose if it is not amended. If enacted as written, AB 2344 would require Caltrans, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), to establish a wildlife Agenda Item 8 474 connectivity project list of wildlife passage projects. The bill would require the list to be included in the wildlife connectivity action plan and require Caltrans and DFW to prioritize the implementation of projects on the list based on specified factors, including, among others, the project's ability to enhance connectivity and permeability within a connectivity area or natural landscape area identified in the wildlife connectivity action plan. RCTC aligns with efforts to protect the biodiversity of our ecosystems through sustainable development and is already doing the work, but AB 2344 would also implement duplicative impact assessments and remediation processes for transportation projects. As such, the bill currently fails to acknowledge the conservation efforts already underway in areas with habitat conservation plans. A vast majority of transportation, infrastructure, and housing development projects in Riverside County are assessed for impacts to the habitat of any of the 146 species protected by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) or the 27 species protected by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The same is true for projects impacting protected species elsewhere in the state that are covered by HCPs or NCCPs. Impacts to habitat covered by these plans are assessed in close collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. What sets these plans apart from piecemeal mitigation processes, is that they have already identified priority wildlife corridors and habitats to add to their comprehensive habitat reserve systems via streamlined mitigation processes. RCTC requested that the following language be amended into AB 2344: Amend Section 3, Article 3.8, § 158.1 to read: 158.1. For any project using state or federal transportation funds programmed after January 1, 2024, the department shall ensure that, if the project is located in an area identified as a connectivity area or a natural landscape area in the wildlife connectivity action plan pursuant to Section 1961 of the Fish and Game Code and not in an area covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 2800 of the Fish and Game Code or a habitat conservation plan, an assessment of potential barriers to wildlife movement is done before commencing project planning and again during project design. The department shall submit the assessment to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. If any structural barrier to wildlife movement exists, remediation of the problem shall be designed into the project by the implementing agency. New projects or improvements to existing infrastructure or projects shall be constructed so that they do not present a barrier to fish and wildlife movement. When addressing barriers to wildlife movement, plans and projects shall be developed in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife The action to oppose, unless amended, is consistent with the Commission adopted 2022 State and Federal Legislative Platform, including: Regional Control Agenda Item 8 475 • Policies should be sensitive to each region's unique needs and avoid "one size fits all" assumptions, over -reliance on one mode of transportation, and lack of distinction between urban, suburban, and rural needs. Protect Our Authority and Revenue • Oppose efforts to place mandates on agencies which would drive up operating costs and thereby reduce the amount of funds available to deliver mobility improvements which could nullify RCTC priorities. Alignment of Responsibilities • Support policies that provide decision -making authority and flexibility to agencies bearing financial risk for projects. Oppose policies that place unfunded mandates and other undue burdens and restrictions on agencies that bear financial risk for projects. Environment • Support efforts or initiatives that limit the liability of transportation projects for long-term conservation or mitigation. • Oppose efforts to place new environmental criteria (such as GHG reduction or vehicle miles traveled reduction) on transportation projects and programs without commensurate funding for alternatives or mitigations. Projects • Oppose policies that inhibit the efficient, timely delivery of such projects. Senate Bill 1121 (Gonzalez) — Support action taken based on platform Senate Bill (SB) 1121 authored by Senate Transportation Committee Chair, Lena Gonzalez, would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to biennially develop a needs assessment of the cost to operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth and resiliency of the state and local transportation system. In developing the needs assessment, the CTC would be required to consult with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, local governments, and transit operators. In addition, the bill requires the CTC to estimate the cost to provide for future growth of the state and local transportation system in the needs assessment and must include the cost to address climate change impacts. In opposition letters to AB 2237 (Friedman) and AB 2438 (Friedman), RCTC has expressed concerns regarding legislative efforts that prematurely restructure how transportation projects are planned, funded, and delivered, without a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure and service need, nor increased funding and regulatory flexibility. SB 1121 would be a meaningful first step as the state explores how to advance climate action goals by transitioning our transportation systems to multimodal transit alternatives. Agenda Item 8 476 Supporting this legislation is consistent with the Commission's 2022 adopted State and Federal Legislative Platform, including: Regional Control • State and federal rulemakings, administrative processes, program guidelines, and policy development activities should include meaningful collaboration from regional transportation agencies. • Policies should be sensitive to each region's unique needs and avoid "one size fits all" assumptions, over -reliance on one mode of transportation, and lack of distinction between urban, suburban, and rural needs. Alignment of Responsibilities • Support strong collaborative partnerships with state and federal agencies. Alternatives to Driving — Transit and Rail • Support integration of public transportation systems in southern California. Projects • Support programs and policies that advantage transportation projects in Riverside County, including, but not limited to: o Measure A -funded projects o Grade separations o Transit capital projects and operations by regional and municipal transit agencies o Commuter rail capital projects and operations o Intercity Rail Service to the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass o Local streets and road projects sponsored by the county and municipalities o Active transportation projects o Projects included in the Traffic Relief Plan adopted in May 2020 o Locally led bridge projects Continued Legislative Advocacy Staff continue to work with members of Riverside County's State delegation on Assembly Bills 1778 (Cristina Garcia), 2237 (Friedman), and 2438 (Friedman). All three bills passed out of the Assembly with razor thin majority vote. July 1 is the last day for policy committees to meet and consider bills before the legislative summer recess. The Legislature will reconvene on August 1 and August 31 is the last day for each house to pass bills. Staff will continue to be active throughout legislative process and keep commissioners apprised of opportunities to advocate. Agenda Item 8 477 Federal Update Congressionally Directed Spending and Community Project Funding As part of the federal fiscal year 2023 appropriations process, RCTC requested $21 million in funding for three projects, including: • Downtown Third Street Grade Separation, Safety and Mobility project; • 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension; and • Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Tier 11 environmental. RCTC learned that each one of these requests were reviewed by congressional offices and have been submitted to congressional appropriation committees. This includes: • $3 million request for the Downtown Third Street Grade Separation, Safety and Mobility project — submitted by Representative Takano; • $3 million for the 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension — submitted by Representative Calvert; and • $5 million for CV Rail Tier 11 environmental — submitted by Senator Padilla. RCTC's requests made it past the individual member office reviews and will now be considered by congressional appropriation committees. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a policy and information item. There is no fiscal impact. Attachments: 1) State and Federal Update Legislative Matrix —June 2022 2) Assembly Bill 2344 (Friedman) Oppose Unless Amended — Letter 3) Senate Bill 1121 (Gonzalez) Support — Letter Agenda Item 8 478 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION -JUNE 2022 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 1121 (Gonzalez) This bill would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to biennially develop a needs assessment of the cost to operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth and resiliency of the state and local transportation system. In developing the needs assessment, the CTC would be required to consult with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, local governments, and transit operators. In addition, the bill requires the CTC to estimate the cost to provide for future growth of the state and local transportation system in the needs assessment and must include the cost to address climate change impacts. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee May 27, 2022 SUPPORT Staff action based on platform June 15, 2022 AB 2344 (Friedman) If enacted as written, AB 2344 would require Caltrans, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), to establish a wildlife connectivity project list of wildlife passage projects. The bill would require the list to be included in the wildlife connectivity action plan and require Caltrans and DFW to prioritize the implementation of projects on the list based on specified factors, including, among others, the project's ability to enhance connectivity and permeability within a connectivity area or natural landscape area identified in the wildlife connectivity action plan. Referred to Senate Committees on Natural Resource and Water and Transportation June 8, 2022 OPPOSE Unless Amended Staff action based on platform June 3, 2022 SB 1410 (Caballero) This bill would require, by January 1, 2025, to conduct and submit to the Legislature a study on the impacts and implementation of the guidelines described above relating to transportation impacts. The bill would require the office, upon appropriation, to establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to local jurisdictions for implementing those guidelines. Referred to Assembly Committee on Natural Resources June 2, 2022 Support May 11, 2022 AB 2237 (Friedman) AB 2237 would limit use of State Transportation Improvement Program funding and reframe the administration of such, while also seeking a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities for metropolitan planning organizations A7o Referred to Senate Committees on Environmental Quality, Transportation and Housing. June 8, 2022 OPPOSE May 11, 2022 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 2438 (Friedman) This bill would require the agencies that administer those programs to revise the guidelines or plans applicable to those programs to ensure that projects included in the applicable program align with the California Transportation Plan, the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure adopted by the Transportation Agency, and specified greenhouse gas emissions reduction standards. The bill would require the Transportation Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the California Transportation Commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board and the Strategic Growth Council, to jointly prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2025, that comprehensively reevaluates transportation program funding levels, projects, and eligibility criteria with the objective of aligning the largest funding programs with the goals set forth in the above -described plans and away from projects that increase vehicle capacity. Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation June 8, 2022 OPPOSE Staff action based on platform March 24, 2022 AB 1778 (Cristina Garcia) This bill would prohibit any state funds or personnel time from being used to fund or permit freeway widening projects in areas with high rates of pollution and poverty. Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation June 1, 2022 OPPOSE March 9, 2022 AB 1499 (Daly) Removes the January 1, 2024 sunset date for Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies to use the design - build procurement method for transportation projects in California. Signed by the Governor September 22, 2021 SUPPORT April 14, 2021 SB 623 (Newman) Clarifies existing law to ensure toll operators statewide can improve service to customers and enforce toll policies while increasing privacy protections for the use of personally identifiable information (PII). Failed to Pass House of Origin by January 31, 2022 deadline. February 1, 2022 SUPPORT Staff action based on platform April 5, 2021 SB 261 (Allen) This bill would require that the sustainable communities strategy be developed to additionally achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2045 and 2050 and vehicle miles traveled reduction targets for 2035, 2045, and 2050 established by the board. The bill would make various conforming changes to integrate those additional targets into regional transportation plans. Failed to Pass House of Origin by January 31, 2022 deadline. February 1, 2022 OPPOSE May 12, 2021 Federal Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption HR 972 (Calvert) This bill establishes the Western Riverside County Wildlife Refuge which would provide certainty for development of the transportation infrastructure required to meet the future needs of southern California. Ordered Reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources July 14, 2021 SUPPORT Staff action based on platform June 11, 2021 481 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION June 3, 2022 The Honorable Laura Friedman Assemblymember, District 43 California State Assembly P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, California 94249-0043 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI. Riverside, CA 92501 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 951.787.7141 • rctc.org RE: AB 2344 (Freidman) — Oppose Unless Amended Dear Assemblymember Friedman: On behalf of the Riverside CountyTransportation Commission (RCTC), I write with proposed amendments to Assembly Bill (AB) 2344. As the managing agency of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), which administers the state's largest Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the nation's largest Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), RCTC commends your interest in developing a comprehensive plan to bolster wildlife connectivity across the state. RCTC aligns with efforts to protect the biodiversity of our ecosystems through sustainable development and is already doing the work but must oppose AB 2344 if duplicative impact assessments and remediation processes for transportation projects remain in place. A vast majority of transportation, infrastructure, and housing development projects in Riverside County are assessed for impacts to the habitat of any of the 146 species protected by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) or the 27 species protected by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The same is true for projects impacting protected species elsewhere in the state that are covered by HCPs or NCCPs. Impacts to habitat covered by these plans are assessed in close collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. What sets these plans apart from piecemeal mitigation processes, is that they have already identified priority wildlife corridors and habitats to add to their comprehensive habitat reserve systems via streamlined mitigation processes. I n western Riverside County alone, we have conserved 412,393 acres to date —over 82 percent of our 500,000 -acre reserve goal, conserving habitat of protected species and securing open space for countless communities. The MSHCP not only contributes to the state's "30 by 30" conservation goals, but also incentivizes more dense development by permanently protecting vast landscapes from irreversible conversion to development. In turn, those conserved habitats advance nature -based solutions to climate change through naturally occurring carbon sequestration. RCTC recently opened its State Route 60 Truck Lanes project, which features two new, 20 feet by 20 feet wildlife crossings that provides connectivity for protected species such as the mountain lion in San Timoteo Canyon, a vital linkage between San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest. A video of the new wildlife crossings is linked in the exhibit of this letter. This project was completed in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), but our partnership has not stopped there. We continue to work with Caltrans and other conservation partners to seek state funding to retrofit crossings in locations on State Route 91 and Interstate 15. As such, we continue to advocate for increased budget funding for new wildlife crossings, as well as for retrofits of existing wildlife crossings. 482 The Honorable Laura Friedman June 3, 2022 Page 2 In Riverside County, we are doing the work and have done so since the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) was completed over 20 years ago to sustainablyplan for housing and transportation infrastructure need, balanced with open space and habitat preservation. Riverside County believes so much in the mission of the RCIP and the MSHCP, that Measure A —our voter -approved transportation sales tax —conditions that cities in western Riverside County must be a permittee of the MSHCP and must adopt a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) that funds the RCA's land acquisition and habitat management programs. RCTC applauds efforts by the state to implement comprehensive and sustainable development measures like Riverside County has. However, RCTC believes that measures such as AB 2344 should recognize regional plans in place and exempt projects within those plans from duplicative requirements for assessment for impact to wildlife connectivity and subsequent remediation. RCTC requests that the following language be amended into AB 2344: Amend Section 3, Article 3.8, § 158.1 to read: 158.1. For any project using state or federal transportation funds programmed afterJanuary 1, 2024, the department shall ensure that, if the project is located in an area identified as a connectivity area or a natural landscape area in the wildlife connectivity action plan pursuant to Section 1961 of the Fish and Game Code and not in an area covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 2800 of the Fish and Game Code or a habitat conservation plan, an assessment of potential barriers to wildlife movement is done before commencing project planning and again during project design. The department shall submit the assessment to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. If any structural barrier to wildlife movement exists, remediation of the problem shall be designed into the project by the implementing agency. New projects or improvements to existing infrastructure or projects shall be constructed so that they do not present a barrier to fish and wildlife movement. When addressing barriers to wildlife movement, plans and projects shall be developed in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. RCTC is a willing partner and will continue to work with the state to turn the page toward innovative and sustainable transportation solutions that advance sustainable development and landscape -scale habitat conservation. For these reasons, RCTC requests your due consideration of our proposed amendments to AB 2344. If you have any questions regarding RCTC's position on this issue, please contact me or David Knudsen, External Affairs Director, at (951) 787-7141. Sincerely, 777r Anne Mayer Executive Director Exhibit: State Route 60 Truck Lanes Wildlife Crossing Video 483 ATTACHMENT 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION June 15, 2022 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI. Riverside, CA 92501 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 951.787.7141 • rctc.org The Honorable Laura Friedman Chair, Assembly Committee on Transportation California State Assembly 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: Support for SB 1121 (Gonzalez) Dear Chair Friedman: On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write in support of SB 1121 (Gonzalez). As written, the bill would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in coordination with transportation planning agencies and other key state, regional, and local stakeholders, to prepare a biennial needs assessment of the costs to operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth of local and state transportation systems for the next 10 years. RCTC recognizes various efforts in the state to secure an equitable and climate -resilient future, including for residents in Riverside County. However, a number of those efforts prematurely seek dramatic rewrites of state and local transportation funding requirements, impacting how transportation projects are planned, programed, and delivered. By forcing all regions —regardless of their existing mobility infrastructure and resources available locally or from the state —to limit the modes of transportation which they may improve, the disadvantaged communities of under-resourced regions without reliable multimodal transit alternatives would be socioeconomically stranded in traffic. The prudent approach of SB 1121 to engage stakeholders such as RCTC and comprehensively assess the need and associated cost of all transportation systems, including multimodal transit systems, demonstrates a meaningful first step for the state to coordinate a just transition to a climate -resilient future for all communities. Such a needs assessment would provide clarity for staggering investments the State must make —not just in coastal urban centers, but also in more inland regions —in order to transition away from roadway usage while addressing climate change impacts and promoting system resiliency. 484 The Honorable Laura Friedman July 15, 2022 Page 2 RCTC is a willing partner and has every interest in working with the state to turn the page toward innovative, sustainable transportation solutions that are accessible, equitable, and inclusive. But these inequities look different from community to community and from region to region. SB 1121 will allow for stakeholders across the state to work together to build the capacity of our multimodal transit systems and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. If you have any questions regarding RCTC's position on this issue, please contact me at (951) 787-7141. Sincerely, el� Anne Mayer Executive Director CC: Senator Lena A. Gonzalez, District 33 Members of the Riverside County State Legislative Delegation 485 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk Steve DeBaun. Legal Counsel of the Board THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Meeting Format Options STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to provide direction regarding approach to future meetings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since AB 361 went into effect, the Commission has continued to affirm the findings that allow legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely should the need arise to hold a virtual or hybrid meeting. Since May of 2022, the Commission has held its standing Committee and Commission meetings in -person. At the June Commission meeting, Commissioners asked that this item be brought back for discussion to consider the possibility of continuing to meet virtually or in a hybrid setting. This item is for the Commission to discuss and provide direction regarding the approach to future meetings. Agenda Item 9 486 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JULY 13, 2022 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I O x County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV O x County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa X 0 City of Canyon Lake O x City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale X 0 City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley X 0 City of La Quinta X 0 City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of M u rrieta X 0 City of Norco X 0 City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris X 0 City of Rancho Mirage X 0 City of Riverside X 0 City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar X 0 Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 X 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JULY 13, 2022 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS 2f1 ff t( tr•Cr6 C-ni )(t C r E ..sak 1 C_ e rqcel� �-�, P (' ld ca(4 av, %L -obit i�� M� 11:1 (C) u , v eL -etl' --N •► W e 15. G&'/ I/ r,,nzi.0 0'7'i- e,,A--- _60/)1,41-"M __Dgs. r. V - - - /ii . 57,,,,,,,s .5::: ,2/Vi /(5 ,{ /JT)5 �fl /p lri.-) 6t1) �il111,44 E(2- fl -/l/ /frwA!< F&-: (.1-)/C, S -e A ,6-c, (C) -o -.) - — .1 e .i' e6,li , /�f /JPP�7_�' / (7(C?ndPr �rIversi,)Pcoyv OJ L AK1 `�- 1 _"-� `: `" • : �T JAL /T� fiti' v»2 AiT g61/1/1/)Tee '40- cjqv- / /i Ali CA — st Z__. f� fi7=° N /f, 07 /�/'{6004 A/ - //3/ /J- 4-eiT % /4-4-r4-5 -)22i 3 12/71o_ 7 Wi'°/5L- 515/_>1/-7- Z0,-/:,,,, ...e./ As��� L--------- 726 /77:7-17;7,//4..1( /V,©2CQ 0 ;A/0 t0"-Eill 49t4 ggfiak_... r,a,l /eye % --7 �v(vrq A//P7 ,I5 LiAibn Mo ► /,- W i nleS& rCSf/ m,9. en - Mc? ar\ Fct. xz vas lY�InL c i.c.QcL t,nar An edcon.rc.t5e-telYttGitke./4 j\L