Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 12, 2005 Commissionbqq8l RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Robin Lowe 1' Vice Chairman: Marion Ashley 2nd Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Art Welch / John Machisic, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City c. rt3roiia Magi WeyzAer / Henry "Han!.." Ho;henstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer / Mary Roche, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District 8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, January 12, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public Comment Section is for items not listed on the agenda. Comments relating to an item listed on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed.) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 8, 2004 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 2 6A. STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on the Commercial Paper program. 6B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 8 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended November 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004. 6C. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 10 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule Report the months of September, October, and November 2004. 6D. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND PREPARE A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE I-215/SR 74/"G" STREET INTERCHANGE IN PERRIS Page 14 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering services and preparation of a Caltrans Project Report (PR) and NEPA/CEQA Environmental Document (ED) for the development of the I-215/SR 74/"G" Street Interchange in Perris; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC, Caltrans, and City of Perris staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and bring back a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 3 6E. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-532 WITH CH2M HILL FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Page 16 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-532, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-043, with CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost for a not to exceed amount of $10,937,728 for the realignment of SR 79 in the vicinity of the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet for the development of a Project Report and Environmental Document; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute amendments for non cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a maximum contingency amount of $2,220,926 for a not to exceed total contract amount of $15,153,151 (includes original contract value of $1,994,497); and, 3) Authorize up to $13,158,654 of Western County Regional TUMF funds to the contract recognizing the Commission's commitment to deliver a future six lane facility on the realigned portion of State Route 79 for $132,000,000 of future Measure "A" and $83,293,000 of TUMF, inclusive of this action; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 4 6F. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-533 WITH SC ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROUTE 91 FROM MARY STREET TO 7T" STREET Page 108 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-533, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-009, with SC Engineering to extend the limits of the SR 91 HOV widening project to finalize the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost for a total amount of $306,216; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6G. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-33-523 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT Page 135 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-523 to Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. for the construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station parking lot improvement for the amount of $388,445.50 plus a contingency amount of $50,000, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $438,445.50; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Amend the Commuter Rail capital budget by $188,500 and Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect changes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 5 6H. RESERVE POLICY FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 142 1) Establish a transit operators' reserve policy of 10% for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley apportionment areas; 2) Establish a transit operators' reserve policy of 10% for each of the transit operators (public bus and commuter rail) in the western Riverside County apportionment area; and, 3) Revise the Funding Disbursement Policy so that 100% of the operating funds are allocated and disbursed with two -twelfths of the 100% disbursed the first month and the remainder (ten -twelfths) disbursed over the next eleven months. 61. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 147 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the membership roster for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC) effective January 2005. 6J. AWARD OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-531 FOR CALL BOX SUPPORT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 150 1) Award Agreement No. 05-45-531 to Bernard J. Arroyo for Call Box Consultant services for a one-year period from January 3, 2005 through December 31, 2005 with four (4) one-year options; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 6 6K. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2005 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Page 152 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. 6L. APPROVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 05-25-536 WITH LACMTA, OCTA, SANBAG, VCTC, SCAG, AND CALTRANS FOR THE MULTI - COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN Page 155 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-25-536 with LACMTA, OCTA, SANBAG, VCTC, SCAG, and Caltrans for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan in the amount of $125,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $125,000 of re -allocated LTF funds and increase the FY 2004-05 rail operating budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. 6M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 160 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6N. RCTC POLICY PROHIBITING EMPLOYMENT OF EX -OFFICIO, NON- VOTING BOARD MEMBERS Page 177 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the RCTC Personnel Policies and Procedures to allow the ex -officio member of RCTC to be eligible for employment following resignation from the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 7 7. AWARD OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-530 TO JACOBS CIVIL INC. TO PROVIDE PHASE II OF ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Page 180 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-530, Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs Civil Inc. for the Mid County Parkway Project to develop a Project Report and Environmental Document based on the negotiated project scope, schedule and cost that is attached to this agenda item for a not to exceed amount of $22,025,928; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute amendments for non cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a maximum contingency amount of $4,108,456 for a not to exceed total contract amount of $26,134,384; 3) Authorize the commitment of $8,303,000 of Western County Regional/CETAP TUMF funds and $17,831,384 of commercial paper funds to the contract, and authorize interfund borrowing, if necessary, to support the project's short term cash flow needs; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8. AWARD OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-25-535 FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 271 1) Award Agreement No. 05-25-535 for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study for a not to exceed amount of $150,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $150,000 of re -allocated LTF funds and increase the FY 2004-05 rail operating budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 12, 2005 Page 8 9. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 274 1) Approve the Proposed 2005-2006 State and Federal Legislative Programs; 2) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT — ACA 4 (Plescia, R -San Diego); and, 3) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities, including a proposal to change the Commission's March meeting date. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD L c c , ctr Speakers shall complete the foll owing: PUBLIC COMMENTS: )-,1( AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA ) NA ME: ADDRESS: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC CO MMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: DATE: , /'- 7k/erg4L,NX s 7Vi" /N c/rcx?oV� �, /91 `t B RNAy 11 1 14AW 7T TEL . NO.: T !- S. i� 5/ '•- 1f-7 `t M OS je-c7 , k'C )116 ,r c-#43") (`„t 7 2 5-67 Street City J Zip Code REPRESENTING: Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO.: RCTC/nk 10/03 AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, December 8, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at 9:06 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy Byrd Mary Craton Juan DeLara Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Paul Marchand Anne Mayer Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Ron Roberts Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Art Welch Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Matt Weyuker Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Wilson and Vice Chair Robin Lowe presented Commissioners Jim Venable and Jack Wamsley with plaques to commemorate and honor their service with the Commission. Commissioner Wamsley extended his appreciation for the fairness demonstrated by Commission members to all cities in the County. Commissioner Venable commended the Commission members and their cities for their hard work and accomplishments. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Marchand/Tavaglione) to approve of the November 10, 2004 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Craton, Moqeet 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted revisions to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 6A, "Proposed 2005 Commission and Committee Meeting Schedule" • Agenda item 6B, "Adoption of Resolution No. 04-020, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix of the Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974" • Agenda Item 7, "AB 3090 Reimbursement / State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendment for State Route 60 Widening Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15" 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Wilson noted a request to pull Agenda Item 6R, "Approval of Agreement No. 05-33-526, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-33-009, with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. to Provide Additional Right -of -Way Services for the Perris Multi -Modal Station" from the Consent Calendar due to conflict of interest. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Roger Berg requested Agenda Item 6M, "Approval of Agreement No. 05-31-525, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to Provide Additional Construction Management/ Inspection Services for the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley" be pulled from the Consent Calendar. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Marchand), with the exception of Agenda Items 6M and 6R, approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. PROPOSED 2005 COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE Adopt the proposed 2005 Commission and Committee meeting schedule. 6B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-020, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE APPENDIX OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974" Adopt Resolution No. 04-020, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix of the Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974". 6C. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 COMMISSION AUDIT RESULTS Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2003-2004: 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; 2) Local Transportation Fund Audited Financial Statements; 3) State Transit Assistance Fund Audited Financial Statements; 4) Compliance Report; 5) Audit Results Report; 6) Agreed -Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance Program incentives; and, 7) Agreed -Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriation Limit Calculation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 4 6D. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-019, "DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS" Adopt Resolution No. 04-019, "Declaration of Official Intent of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from Proceeds of Indebtedness". 6E. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ended September 30, 2004. 6F. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended October 31, 2004. 6G. FOLLOW-UP ON STIP/STPL FUND TRADE FOR STATE ROUTE 79 WIDENING PROJECT FROM HUNTER ROAD TO DOMENIGONI PARKWAY Approve trading $3.55 million of delayed State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds with federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for the SR 79 widening project as a follow-up to the January 2004 Commission action. 6H. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-527, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE STATE ROUTE 91 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1152, BETWEEN CALTRANS AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO PREPARE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 HOV LANE PROJECT FROM ADAMS STREET TO 60/91/215 INTERCHANGE 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527, Amendment No. 1 to the SR 91 Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1152, to increase the Caltrans oversight costs by $234,000, which will be funded from the current Traffic Congestion Relief allocation; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 5 61. CITY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST TO REPROGRAM REGIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS Approve the City of Riverside's request to reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds from the Van Buren widening project (Jackson Street to the Santa Ana River) to the State Route 91 Van Buren Interchange. 6J. CITY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST TO REPROGRAM TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FUNDS 1) Approve the reprogramming of $277,000 of Transportation Enhancement Activities funds from the University Streetscape project to the Victoria Restoration project; 2) Deprogram the remaining $225,000 of TEA funds from the University Streetscape project to allow the city to move forward with the project using local funds; and, 3) Allow the City of Riverside to trade the remaining $225,000 with another Commission approved federal project by January 30, 2005. 6K. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 1) Approve the Reche Vista/Reche Canyon realignment and widening project submitted by the City of Moreno Valley as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; and, 2) Program $409,000 in TUMF Regional funds for Project Development (PA&ED) work and incorporate the project into the five-year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009. 6L. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-524, WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) FOR CONSTRUCTION ZONE ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (COZEEP) SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES ON STATE ROUTE 60 IN MORENO VALLEY 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-524 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) services during construction of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on State Route 60 in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed contract amount of $100,000; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 6 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6N. PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS: FISCAL YEARS 2000-2001 THROUGH 2002-2003 Receive and file the progress report on implementing recommendations from RCTC's Triennial Performance Audit conducted for FYs 2000- 2001 through 2002-2003. 60. FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 TRANSIT OPERATORS' REPORT Receive and file the FY 2003-04 Transit Operators' Report. 6P. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY OPERATIONAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Receive and file the Operational Evaluation Recommendation Summary which will be presented to the SunLine Transit Agency's Board at its December 1, 2004 meeting. 6Q. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Approve the amendment to the FY 2004-05 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside. 6S. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6T. 2004 BEACH TRAIN PROGRAM SUMMARY Receive and file the 2004 Beach Train Program Summary as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 7 7. AB 3090 REIMBURSEMENT / STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) AMENDMENT FOR STATE ROUTE 60 WIDENING PROJECT FROM VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 Eric Haley presented the issues impacting the SR 60 widening project from Valley Way to Interstate 15 and the proposed loan of TUMF funds to continue the project as scheduled. At Commissioner Paul Marchand's request, Eric Haley reviewed the sources of repayment for the proposed loan and noted that no projects are negatively impacted as a result of this loan. Commissioners John Tavaglione, Jeff Miller, and Marion Ashley expressed strong support for this action. M/S/C (Lowe/Marchand) to: 1) Commit $13.046 million of local Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds as a loan to replace $3.261 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds and $9.785 million of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds for the SR 60 widening project; 2) Enter into Agreement No. 05-31-528, an AB 3090 agreement, with Caltrans and designate the SR 60/1-215 East Junction direct connector as a replacement for the SR 60 widening project by programming $13.046 million ($3.261 million RIP and $9.785 million IIP) in FY 2007-08; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Commit future funds with interest (e.g. Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Surface Transportation Program (STP), or commercial paper) on designated interchanges on the TUMF network as repayment of the $13.046 million TUMF loan. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 8 8. PRESENTATION ON WAYSIDE HORN DEMONSTRATION IN RIVERSIDE Tom Boyd, Deputy Public Works Director, City of Riverside, presented an overview of the Wayside Horn Demonstration project. It is one of two pilot programs in the state authorized by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The Union Pacific rail corridor was selected, which is entirely residential. Stationary horns were installed at six crossing in May 2004 at a cost in excess of $500,000 with a decibel level of 96, which he noted is lower than train horns. He indicated that a large number of complaints have been received regarding the duration and loudness of the stationary horns, which can be attributed to the slow speeds and stopping of the trains that causes the horns to continuously blow. City of Riverside staff worked with the PUC and the Union Pacific Railroad to attempt to mitigate the problem. The decibel level was lowered to 92 but track circuitry did not allow delaying the horns. A recommendation is being forwarded to the city council to authorize a study of grade crossing priorities and use of quiet zones. Commissioner Marchand stated that he believes the outcome of this project should be forwarded to Riverside County's congressional representatives. Commissioner Bob Buster expressed his appreciation to the City of Riverside for their efforts. He believes that the project's failure provides an opportunity to inform congressional representatives and senators that a best effort has been made to mitigate the noise issue caused by the increasing train traffic and additional dedicated funding mitigation for grade separations is necessary. Commissioner Ameal Moore concurred with Commission Buster's comments. M/S/C (Byrd/Marchand) to receive and file presentation on the City of Riverside's Wayside Horn Demonstration Project. 9. ELECTION OF 2005 OFFICERS AND SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Election of Chair, Vice Chair, and 2"d Vice Chair Chairman Wilson opened nominations for the Chair position. Commissioner Tavaglione, seconded by Commissioner Marchand nominated the slate of officers as follows: Robin Lowe for the Chair position; Marion Ashley for the Vice Chair position; and Terry Henderson the 2nd Vice Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chairman Wilson closed the nominations. Robin Lowe was unanimously elected as RCTC's Chair, Marion Ashley was unanimously elected as RCTC's Vice Chair, and Terry Henderson was unanimously elected as RCTC's 2"d Vice Chair. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 9 Appointment of Executive Committee Representative At this time, Chairman Wilson called for the following the cities to select their representative to the Executive Committee: Riverside, Corona, and Moreno Valley. Commissioner Percy Byrd announced that the representative to the Executive Committee for the Cities of Coachella Valley is Commissioner Michael Wilson. Commissioner Ameal Moore announced that the representative to the Executive Committee for the Cities of Riverside, Corona, and Moreno Valley is Commissioner Jeff Miller. Chairman Wilson then called for the following the cities to select their representative to the Executive Committee: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. Commissioner Robin Lowe announced that the reappointment of Commissioner Chris Buydos to the Executive Committee to represent the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 6M. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-525, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-042, WITH BERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/ INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY Commissioner Berg expressed concern for an incident he witnessed at the Perris Boulevard offramp in Moreno Valley involving curb work that lacked traffic control and unnecessarily caused traffic to backup approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, responded that he would research the incident. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 10 M/S/C (Lowe/Marchand) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-525, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) median widening project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed contract amount of $500,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6R. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-33-526, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 04-33-009, WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS MULTI -MODAL STATION M/S/C (Marchand/Lowe) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-33-526, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-33-009, with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. to provide additional Right -of -Way Services for the Perris Multi - Modal Station Project in Perris, for a not to exceed contract amount of $30,175; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Abstain: Ashley, Busch 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Commissioner Miller urged Commissioners meet with their respective city staffs and WRCOG representatives and fully communicate the TUMF projects that have either been exempted or monies paid in lieu of TUMF fees and report back to WRCOG on those projects to accurately reflect monies being programmed to build projects. B. Eric Haley reported on the New York bond rating trip in which the Commission received a strong endorsement from three major rating agencies. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 8, 2004 Page 11 C. Commissioner Lowe reported on the New York bond rating trip, noting how complementary the meetings were to the Commission and staff. She also thanked Chairman Wilson for his guidance the past year. She then commended Commissioner Venable on his commitment to SR 79. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS There were no items to be discussed under Closed Session. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report on the Commercial Paper Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on the Commercial Paper program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: One of the finance goals included in the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 budget is the establishment of a new commercial paper program "to provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the approved Measure "A" renewal of 2002." The following is a report on the status of the new commercial paper program, as it is anticipated that the commercial paper program and related legal documents will be presented to the Commission at its February 9, 2005 meeting for approval. This timing is critical in order to have a commercial paper program in place prior to the March 2005 California Transportation Commission meeting, at which Commission staff will be prepared to discuss joint projects with the state as well as back-up funding for critical projects in Riverside County. A presentation of a preliminary financing plan was made at the May 7, 2004 Commissioners' Workshop. At its September 8, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the selection of bond counsel (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) and underwriting firms (Lehman Brothers, Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup/E.J. De La Rosa & Co., Inc., and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.). Lehman and Banc of America have been designated as the commercial paper dealers. Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott was selected as disclosure counsel using single signature authority. On November 22, 2004, Commissioners Roy Wilson and Robin Lowe, Eric Haley, Executive Director, and Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer along with financial advisor (Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates) and representatives from Lehman and Banc of America met in New York with representatives from the three rating Agenda Item 6A 1 agencies (Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, Moody's Investors Service, and Fitch Ratings). A presentation was made to each of the rating agencies to provide the annual update regarding the Commission and Measure "A" as well as the financing plan. Each of the rating agencies remarked about the Commission's "good story." Subsequent to the rating agency presentations, the financing team consisting of Commission staff, the financial advisor, bond counsel, disclosure counsel, and the commercial paper dealers have been meeting regarding the planning and establishment of a commercial paper program for the Commission. The commercial paper program is an interim financing vehicle for capital projects. Commercial paper is issued as needed, similar to a line of credit, at short-term interest rates with maturities of less than 270 days. Although the commercial paper issued is short-term, the commercial paper program can be several years in duration. A third party liquidity facility such as a direct pay letter of credit is traditionally used to support commercial paper programs in the rare event that the commercial paper cannot be rolled over by the commercial paper dealers. Based on an identification of capital needs for right-of-way, environmental mitigation, and project development in the Western County and Coachella Valley related to the Measure "A" Transportation Improvement Plan approved by the voters in November 2002, the Commission plans to seek authorization for a commercial paper program of approximately $200 million. Under the new Measure "A", the Commission is authorized to issue debt and have outstanding debt at any time of no more than $500 million. It is expected that $150 million of the commercial paper will be used to provide interim funding of the capital needs (Project Component). Since the ultimate source of repayment for the Commission's obligations under the commercial paper program will be receipts under the new Measure "A" sales tax that commences and are not available until 2009, new commercial paper will be issued to pay outstanding debt service, including the Project Component and accrued interest and fees (Expense Component). Accordingly, it is expected that up to $35 million of the commercial paper program will be reserved to pay the Expense Component. The first issuance of commercial paper is expected in March 2005, and additional commercial paper will be issued based on capital needs and as necessary to provide for the repayment of commercial paper maturing before the new Measure "A" sales tax begins. On a periodic basis, possibly beginning in 2006, the Commission expects to retire portions of the commercial paper program with the issuance of longer term sales tax revenue bonds. A preliminary program development schedule has also been developed and is included as an attachment. Agenda Item 6A 2 On December 17, 2004, requests for proposals were issued for the Direct Pay Letter of Credit to support the commercial paper program and for the Issuing and Paying Agent services for the commercial paper program. Proposals are due and will be reviewed in early January 2005 so that selections can be made and appropriate agreements (Credit Facility and Issuing/Paying Agent) developed. Additionally, financing documents are currently being prepared. The trust indenture provides for the structure of debt issued by the Commission and the application of sales tax receipts to repay debt. A dealer agreement with each of the commercial paper dealers specifies the ongoing relationship between the Commission, as the issuer of commercial paper, and the commercial paper dealers, as the marketers of the commercial paper to the financial community. Resolutions by the Commission authorize the commercial paper program and provide for approval of documents and execution of the transaction by officials of the Commission. An offering memorandum provides information regarding the Commission and a summary of the commercial paper program. These documents are expected to be completed in substantial form for the Commission's review and approval at the February 9, 2005 Commission meeting. Subsequent to the Commission's approval in February 2005, ratings on the commercial paper program will be obtained and a presentation will be made to potential investors to enable the initial issuance of commercial paper by March 1, 2005. Attachment: Preliminary Program Development Schedule Agenda Item 6A 3 _��• Fieldman, Rolapp 11 & Associates ' •. � I' 1 F111A FICIAL AI IC 11. . RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM PRELIMINARY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER 2004 S M T W T FS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 13 19 20 26; 27; 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 DECEMBER 2004 S M T W T F 1 2 3 5 6 7 12 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 28 8 S 4 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 OCTOBER 2004 NOVEMBER 2004 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24/31: 25 ; 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 JANUARY 2005 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23/30 ; 24/31 25 26 27 28 29 FEBRUARY 2005 S M T W T F S 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 i 28 Board meetings are on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. (Outlined) Agenda packages are distributed one week prior to that date. Final materials are needed no later than the day before the agenda package distribution. Budget and Implementation Committee meets on 4th Monday of each month at 10:00 a.m. (Dotted Outline) Agenda packages are distributed one week prior to that date. Final materials are needed no later than the day before the agenda package distribution. All Board items need to go through B&I Committee. RCTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission FA = Financial Advisor/Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates BC = Bond Counsel/Orrick Herrington GC = General Counsel/Best Best & Krieger DC/UC = Disclosure Counsel/Underwriters Counsel/Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott U = Underwriter-Dealer/Lehman Brothers and Banc of America R = Rating Agencies/ Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Fitch Ratings L = Credit Facility Provider/ LC = Counsel to Credit Facility Provider/ = lssuing/Paying Agent (Trustee)/ Revised date December 17, 2004 4 L' Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates INDEPEtiDENI FIIJANCIAL AMID INVESFMElT ADVISORS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM Friday December 3, 2004 • Distribution of initial draft of Term Sheet and RFP for Credit Facility FA Complete Wednesday • Distribution of draft Indenture and BC Complete December 8, 2004 Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement • Approval of Board: RCTC Complete - Reimbursement Resolution Thursday • Distribution of initial draft of RFP for FA Complete December 9, 2004 Issuing/Paying Agent Tuesday December 14, 2004 • Kick-off Meeting @ 9:00 a.m. at RCTC to discuss: FA, RCTC, BC, GC, U, UC Complete - Term Sheet for Credit Facility - Draft RFP for Credit Facility - Draft RFP for Issuing/Paying Agent - Draft Indenture - Timing and sizing issues relating to CP • Comments due on draft RFP for RCTC, BC, U, UC Issuing/Paying Agent • Comments due on draft of Term Sheet and RFP for Credit Facility RCTC, BC, U, UC • Comments due on draft Indenture FA, RCTC, BC, U, UC Wednesday • Distribute revised draft of Indenture BC Complete December 15, 2004 Thursday • Finalize RFP for Credit Facility FA, RCTC, BC, U Complete December 16, 2004 Friday December 17, 2004 • Distribute RFP for Credit Facility, including Term Sheet, to candidate lenders FA Complete • Distribute solicitation for Issuing/Paying Agent services FA Complete Tuesday January 4, 2005 • Informational call with credit facility provider candidates FA, RCTC, U Wednesday • Receive proposals for Issuing/Paying FA, RCTC, U January 5, 2005 Agent and select Revised date December 17, 2004 5 2 ��• Fieldman. Rolapp =11 & Associates ^Jalrult fHl MANCAL AlfEllrOMMII f n()yl'.i-,1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM Friday January 7, 2005 • Receive proposals from Credit Facility provider candidates FA, RCTC Monday January 10, 2005 • Review proposals for Credit Facility • Select provider of Credit Facility FA, RCTC, BC, U FA, RCTC, BC, U Tuesday January 11, 2005 • Distribution of draft financing documents: - Indenture (long term debt) (3rd Draft) - Issuing/Paying Agent Agreement (CP) - Resolutions - Dealer Agreement - Offering Memorandum Wednesday January 12, 2005 • Status Report to Board: - Commercial Paper Transaction Update BC UC UC RCTC Tuesday January 18, 2005 • Distribution of first draft of credit documents - Credit Facility - Reimbursement Agreement Friday January 21, 2005 • Conference Call to discuss: - Financing documents - Credit documents Wednesday January 26, 2005 • 2"d Draft Distribution - Financing documents - Credit documents - Offering Memorandum LC Friday January 28, 2005 (a.m.) • Conference call to discuss: - Financing documents - Credit documents - Offering Memorandum All BC LC DC/UC All Revised date December 17, 2004 3 �,•� I(ielciman, Rolapp E & :Associates INDEPFI DENT FRiANCIAL Al ID IFIVE5F,MIFFIF ADVISOR!; RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM Monday January 31, 2005 • • Agenda package for Board Meeting of 2/9/05 due Distribute documents to rating agencies All All Tuesday • Distribution of Third Draft of Financing BC,LC, DC/UC February 8, 2005 Documents, Credit documents and Offering Memorandum to financing team and rating agencies • Distribution of CP rating conference call agenda FA Wednesday • Approval of Board: RCTC February 9, 2005 - Resolution Authorizing Transaction - Offering Memorandum form Thursday February 10, 2005 • Conference call to discuss documents and rating call All Friday • Rating calls for CP program rating RCTC, FA, U, L February 11, 2005 Thursday • Receive ratings on CP RCTC, FA, U, L February 17, 2005 • Approval of Offering Memorandum for Posting FA, RCTC, U, BC, LC, DC/UC • Final recording of Investor Presentation FA Tuesday • Closing All February 22, 2005 • Post Offering Memorandum and FA, DC/UC, RCTC Investor Presentation +/- Thursday • Investor Conference Call RCTC, FA, U, BC February 24, 2005 Tuesday • Price Issue All March 1, 2005 Revised date December 17, 2004 7 4 AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended November 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004, the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through November 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of December 31, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report Agenda Item 6B 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund Loan Acti vity Report For period ended December 31, 2004 Amount Maturity Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowi ng F und April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) March 4, 2004 Assistance (226) Widening/Animal Crossing Project Date Commissioned Purpose of Loan Appr oved Ad vance to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road March 12, 2003 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 December 10, 2003 Total $ 575,000 AGENDA ITEM 6C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule Report the months of September, October, and November 2004. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current Highway and Rail construction summary status and cost status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the months of September, October, and November. Attachment: Quarterly Report - September, October, and November 2004 Agenda Item 6C 10 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/Rk ROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 11/30/04 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd $37,222,727 $35,019,954 94 .1% $3,226,845 $24,848,986 71 .0% (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $37,222,727 $35,019,954 94 .1% $3,226,845 $24,848,986 71 .0% RO UTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $69,847,655 100.0% $4,198,081 $46,952,702 67.2% (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $69,847,655 100 .0 % $4,198,081 $46,952,702 67 .2% ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003 & 3004) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96 .5 % $237,077 $1,504,593 53 9% Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) Cajalco/Ramona Corridor (2302) $5,030,065 $4,093,519 81 .4% $2,401,455 $3,252,185 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $7,924,562 $6,887,454 86.9% $2,638,532 $4,756,778 69 .1% ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $10,902,100 $10,374,324 95 .2 % $11,459 $9,592,123 92.5 % (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Hook Ramp & I/C (R03008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100 .0% $0 $2,109,519 71.4% Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83 3% $15,031 $954,474 89 .9 % Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100.0% $38,891 $938,046 58.5% (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $16,733,980 $15,993,799 95.6% $65,381 $13,594,162 85.0 % ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $32,375,356 $20,179,755 62.3% $0 $18,579,535 92.1 % 3410,9743,9849-9851(3411-3413) (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $32,375,356 $20,179,755 62.3% $0 $18,579,535 92.1 % Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMIT MENTS AGAINSTAUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 11/30/04 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95 .6% $0 $6,324,731 98 .4% 1-215 PSR RCTC/SANBAG (3012) $2,000,000 $2,000,000 100 .0 % $0 $433,282 21.7 % SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6% $0 $6,324,731 98.4 % PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agree ment (04-31-502) $1,892,126 $1,892.126 100.0% $298,436 $7,759,336 410.1 % SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $1,892,126 $1,892,126 100 .0% $298,436 $7,759,336 410.1% PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $7,231,714 $7,231,714 100.0% $807,771 $5,401,948 74 .7% 2127,2138,2139, 2178,2199,2181,2182 SUBTOTAL PA RK -N -RIDE $7,231,714 $7,231,714 100.0% $807,771 $5,401,948 74 .7 % COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction S31,610,414 $28,643,070 90 .6% $375,145 $26,862,534 93.8% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028)2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Perris Multimodal Facility (3816) $2,000,000 $503,000 25 .2% $69,867 $454,094 90.3% Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $18,771,429 $18,771,429 100.0% $2,564 .238 $14,347,917 76.4% SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL $52,381,843 $47,917,499 91.5% $3,009,250 $41,664,545 87 .0 % TOTALS $232,336,467 $211,398,129 91.0% $14,244,296 $169 .882,723 80.4 % Page 2 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL .SETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A " LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT 11/30/04 ADVANCES BALANCE CO MMIT MENT APPROVED COMMIT CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $364,731 $0 22 .8% SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $364,731 $0 22 .8 % CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Linc oln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,141,102 $0 41.1% Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $0 $5,212,623 $2,141,102 $0 41 .1 % CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $852,346 $0 44 .0 % CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $582,999 $0 44.0% CITY OF TEM ECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,242,218 $0 44 .0 % CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $941,545 $0 44 .0% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 0.0% (Lo an pald In full as of 11/04/04) TOTALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $7,124,941 $0 37.9% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of: 11/30/04 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal to Conduct Preliminary Engineering and Prepare a Project Report and Environmental Document for the I-215/SR 74/"G" Street Interchange in Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering services and preparation of a Caltrans Project Report (PR) and NEPA/CEQA Environmental Document (ED) for the development of the 1-215/ SR 74/"G" Street Interchange in Perris; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC, Caltrans, and City of Perris staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and bring back a recommendation to the Commission for contract award. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The proposed limits of the project study will be from the intersection of Fourth and "G" Street to 1-215 and Redlands Avenue; and from the 1-215 Interchange to San Jacinto Avenue in the City of Perris. This project was included in the original Measure "A" passed by the voters in 1988. A Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for the project was approved by Caltrans in October 1992. The City of Perris supports the project and has recently requested that the PR/ED be completed. The project will follow the federally required process for completion of Project Approvals (PA) and Environmental Documentation (ED). Agenda Item 6D 14 Staff is anticipating that the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) will take action on the first set of Central Zone TUMF funding recommendations on February 7, 2005. Included in the proposed recommendation is a commitment of $1 million of Central Zone TUMF funds to support the development of PA and ED for the 4th Street/I-215 interchange improvement which, as mentioned previously, is a Measure "A" project. At this time, staff will be working with WRCOG on the commitment for $1 million of Western County Measure "A" Highway funds to match the Central Zone TUMF funds to begin project development work for the 4th Street/I-215 interchange project. Staff will bring this item back to the Commission after receiving WRCOG's approval. SCHEDULE The schedule for the selection process is proposed as follows: Calendar of Events: Distribution of RFP Bidders Information Meeting (not mandatory) Latest Date for an Addendum to be issued Proposals are Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 p.m. Short Listed Firms are Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms Staff Recommendations to Committee Committee Recommendation to Commission January 13, 2005 January 24, 2005 February 11, 2005 February 25, 2005 March 11, 2005 March 17, 2005 March 28, 2005 April 13, 2005 Agenda Item 6D 15 AGENDA ITEM 6E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 05-31-532 with CH2M Hill for the Preliminary Engineering Services for the Preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 Realignment Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-532, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-043, with CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost for a not to exceed amount of $10,937,728 for the realignment of State Route 79 in the vicinity of the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet for the development of a Project Report and Environmental Document; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute amendments for non cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a maximum contingency amount of $2,220,926 for a not to exceed total contract amount of $15,153,151 (includes original contract value of $1,994,497); and 3) Authorize up to $13,158,654 of Western County Regional TUMF funds to the contract recognizing the Commission's commitment to deliver a future six lane facility on the realigned portion of State Route 79 for $132,000,000 of future Measure "A" and $83,293,000 of TUMF, inclusive of this action; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 02-31-043 to CH2M Hill. The scope of work for this contract included preliminary engineering services for the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) for the State Route 79 realignment project. The Agenda Item 6E 16 authorized amount for Agreement No. 02-31-043 was $ 1,994,497 and the anticipated contract duration was 24 months. A notice to proceed was issued on April 18, 2002. Through the end of November 2004, CH2M Hill has expended approximately $ 1,400,000 of this contract over a period of 31 months. The project has achieved approval on Purpose and Need and also Preliminary Agreement on the alternatives to be analyzed in the environmental document. However, significant work remains because of the intense development pressure that has impacted the project and the fact that the locally preferred alternative impacts a sensitive vernal pool complex. Because of the above issues, it was difficult to obtain consensus on the final set of project alternatives. It is now estimated that it will require three additional years to obtain environmental clearance on this project. Now that the final alternatives have been identified and discussions have been held with the various stakeholders involved in the project, the scope of work that will be required to complete this project can be more clearly identified than it could in 2002. Amendment No. 1 includes new tasks to be completed that were not contemplated after the completion of the Project Study Report (PSR). When the PSR was completed, only two alignment alternatives were anticipated to be studied and carried forward into the development of a project report and environmental document. Attachment 2 (Final Realignment Alternatives) depicts the approved alternatives in the PSR. When the technical studies were launched during the winter of 2001, the resource agencies requested that additional build alternative(s) be included in the environmental document such that several paths through each area would be evaluated. From this request, the approved purpose and need had to be revised and additional segments, alternatives and alignments were added to be studied for alternatives selection. Attachment 3 (Alternative Concept Map) depicts a summary of all of the alternatives that have been studied over the past three years. Because of the revision to the purpose and need and as part of the alternative selection process, 91 segments between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road were identified over the past 31 months (see Attachment 3). The details of the difference in the scope of work between the original and the newly proposed are depicted in Attachment 1. On December 2003, collectively, the Resource Agencies agreed to the final Purpose and Need and in June 2004 they also agreed on the Final Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for preliminary agreement to finally move the SR 79 realignment project into the PR/ED phase. Attachment 4 (Alignment Review Areas and Renumbered Decision Points) depicts the alignments, except the eastern alignment, that were approved by the Resource Agencies for inclusion in the Agenda Item 6E 17 PR/ED. Staff is negotiating with the Resource Agencies to remove the Eastern alignment that generally follows the Sanderson Avenue alignment on the east side of Tres Cerritos Hills. This alignment should be eliminated because of the intense development that has occurred in this area that precludes the location of the proposed facility east of Tres Cerritos Hills. Public involvement has been maintained through information meetings and the required scoping meetings that were held in both the City of San Jacinto and the City of Hemet. Riverside County residents within the project limits, but outside of the City limits were also invited to participate in the meeting(s). Staff has achieved the following major milestones for the project: agreement on purpose and need, development of a robust set of alternatives, circulation of the formal Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation (NOI/NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and the completion of the public scoping process. Due to the significant change in conditions that has occurred between the initial contract award and the present, staff is bringing back the scope of work to the Commission for review and authorization to continue with the necessary engineering and environmental studies to keep the approval process moving forward to completion of the PR/ED. The remaining work elements for the Project are estimated to take approximately three years from February 2005 through December 2007, and will take the project through completion of a Record of Decision from the Federal Highway Administration and receipt of a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 1 with CH2M Hill for the continuation of the completion of a PR/ED for the realignment of SR 79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road. A Scope of Work Summary for the SR 79 realignment project is attached. The cost proposal from CH2M Hill to deliver the re-scoped PR/ED is attached for Commission review. The total SR 79 realignment project cost for the proposed scope of work for Amendment No. 1 is for a base amount of $10,937,728 with a contingency amount of $2,220,926 for a total value of $13,158,654. This will bring the total project not to exceed contract value (including the original agreement of $1,994,497 and Amendment No. 1 with contingency) to $15,153,151. The scope of work items where the contingency will likely be spent are shown in the last column of Attachment 6 (SR 79 Realignment Project Cost). Now funding of the contract needs to be determined. The current TUMF Nexus study includes the SR 79 realignment project with a maximum TUMF funding value of $83,293,000, for the entire reach of the corridor. Of this amount, the Nexus Agenda Item 6E 18 justifies $4,490,000 for planning efforts, and $1 1,320,000 for engineering. If the position that 30% of engineering will be accomplished in the PA/ED phase of work then $3,396,000 of the engineering amount could be applied to Amendment No. 1 work for a total of $7,886,000. Since no TUMF funds for planning or engineering have been committed to the project up to this time, applying the total amount of $7,886,000 of the Nexus study based available TUMF funds for planning and engineering to the contract, there is a shortfall of $5,272,653 of what is needed to authorize the contract. The Commission can use either TUMF funds to fill the gap or commercial paper to make up the difference. WRCOG's TUMF 10 -year Strategic Plan includes a policy whereby 100% of all Nexus based TUMF funds for a segment or corridor can be used on any component cost or a combination of component costs (planning, ROW, construction, contingency, etc.) as long as an agency guarantees the entire facility as delineated in the TUMF network is delivered. In the case of the SR 79 realignment project it is included in the extension of Measure "A" for $132,000,000 and is eligible to receive $83,300,000 from the TUMF. While it may be early to predict the probable cost for the delivery of the Nexus study facility which takes the realigned segment of SR 79 up to a six lane facility (note that some project staging may be required), staff is reasonably comfortable with recommending the Commission making a commitment that the facility will be delivered with the $215,300,000 fund availability. With that as a basis, staff recommends the total contract value of $13,158,654 of Amendment No. 1 with contingency be funded through TUMF funds. The issue with using commercial paper on project development work is the interest cost of the money, and how that debt may be retired in 2009, either through a bond or a cash flow payback from the Measure "A" Western County Highway fund if bonding is not appropriate to retire the commercial paper applied to support project development work. Please note the proposed total cost does not include any effort to study the Eastern alignment segments depicted in Attachment 3 (Alternative Concept Map). However, staff will continue to work with the Resource Agencies to keep the eastern alternatives from further consideration due to all of the impacts that these alternatives will have on existing developments (e.g. homes and businesses) in the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. The RCTC model consultant amendment will be use pursuant to Legal Counsel review. Agenda Item 6E 19 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $4,000,000 Source of Funds: TEA -21 Demo Funds Transportation Uniform Mitigation Funds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81101 P3003 Fiscal Procedures Approved: `1,� Date: 01/05/2005 Attachments: 1) Scope of Work Summary for the State Route 79 Realignment Project 2) PSR Final Realignment Alternatives 3) Alternative Concept Map 4) Alignment Review Areas and Renumbered Decision Points 5) SR 79 Realignment Project Scope of Work 6) SR 79 Realignment Project Cost 7) SR 79 Realignment Project Schedule Agenda Item 6E 20 ATTACHMENT 1 Scope of Work Summary for the State Route 79 Realignment Project Through the end of November 2004, CH2M HILL has expended approximately $1,400,000 of this contract over a period of 31 months. The project has achieved approval on Purpose and Need and also Preliminary Agreement on the alternatives to be analyzed in the environmental document. However, significant work remains and it is now estimated that it will require three additional years — to the end of 2007 — to obtain environmental clearance on this project. Now that the alternatives have been identified and discussions have been held with the various stakeholders involved in the project, the scope of work that will be required to complete this project can be more clearly identified than it could in 2002. It is apparent that the budget remaining in the original contract is insufficient to complete the work that is now required to obtain environmental clearance for this project. The proposed Amendment No. 1 costs for the completion of a project report and environmental document for the Realignment of State Route (SR) 79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road is $10,937,728 and a contingency amount of $2,220,926 for a total of $13,158,654. The total cost is summarized in Table 1. The proposed Amendment No. 1 will bring the total authorized contract not to exceed value to $15,153,151. Table 1. Cost Breakdown of Amendment No. 1 Item No. Task Name Amount 1 Project Management $1,747,055 2 Engineering $2,955,249 3 Environmental $6,235,424 4 Contingency $2,220,926 TOTAL $13,158,654 Amendment No 1. includes (a.) new tasks to be completed for the project, (b.) an increase in the effort required to complete existing tasks included in Contract No. 02-31-043, and (c.) an extension of the contract duration. A summary of these items are provided below for Project Management, Engineering, and Environmental tasks. The corresponding cost of each item is identified in Table 2. Additional detail about this estimate can be reviewed in the attached Scope of Work and Cost Breakdown for Amendment No. 1. 21 1) Project Management 1A) New Management Tasks: The original contract included limited time for coordination with the various agencies involved in the project, but did not include regular monthly meetings with all of the resource agencies, which have been required as the project has evolved. The original contract also did not include a task to obtain landowner access, notify landowners of property access, or maintain a property ownership database. This task is required to conduct the environmental surveys on private property. Another new task was to assist RCTC in preparing an application to request that the SR 79 Realignment project be added to the FHWA Environmental Streamlining Executive Order. Finally, the task to upload project documents onto the project website has been added to assist in the distribution of project materials to the various stakeholders. 1 B) Additional Effort for Management Tasks: Additional effort and new tasks have been included for GIS for the project. In Contract No. 02- 31-043, hours were included for GIS to develop figures to support project meetings and documents. At that time, it was anticipated that a minimal effort would be required. With the development of advanced GIS software, the integration of engineering and environmental data is feasible. Since that time, GIS tasks have grown to manage, develop, and maintain both engineering and environmental data for the project. This has coincided with the increase in the development of the project area. GIS has managed the distribution of the engineering alternative data, and frequent iterations, to the environmental team. By integrating the engineering data in GIS, quantitative impact analysis is now more easily completed. Also, because impact calculations will not be completed manually, they can be repeated easily when project alternatives shift. Based on the frequent changes to the project alternatives, as well as the number of required technical report and environmental document review cycles, this will facilitate the efficiency of document revisions. In addition, GIS has been tracking the changes in the planned and approved development projects in the project area. This assists the engineering team to avoid impacts to new developments as well as provide baseline information for the cumulative impact analysis. GIS is gathering and digitizing new data for the project; this includes soil type for biological resources and the determination of farmland impacts, as well as existing and planned land use for the project area. In addition, GIS is managing the collection of GPS data required for all environmental disciplines to identify the location of features or 22 measurements of areas important for a specific discipline. These typically include biological resources, cultural resources, noise, utilities, hazards, and visual. Lastly, GIS has also been managing the landowner access database, updating landowner ownership information on over 1500 parcels, including special instructions from landowners on how to access their property, providing updated access status to task leads, and coordinate the distribution of access notifications based on parcel number. 1C) Extension of Contract Duration: The original contract projected a duration of 24 months beginning in April 2002. It is now estimated that work will be completed in December 2007, resulting in a total contract duration of 69 months. This will result in additional costs to manage the project, conduct monthly Project Development Team meetings, conduct monthly meetings with the resource agencies, attend various meetings with project stakeholders, and prepare monthly progress reports and invoices. 2) Engineering 2A) New Engineering Tasks: A number of new engineering tasks are included for the project. These tasks were not anticipated to be required for the project. The central alignment through the vernal pool complex is going to require extensive analysis from a hydrology and water quality standpoint in order to be properly evaluated in the environmental document. Additional tasks related to this effort are the storm water data report, HEC-RAS modeling, location hydraulic study, water quality assessment analysis, and the floodplain evaluation report. New work will be required for the Advance Planning Studies (APS) and the Geotechnical work in order to address Caltrans requirements that an APS be performed for every structure on the preferred alternative. A conceptual landscape plan is now required to be included in the environmental document. In addition, a Value Analysis study will need to be performed to satisfy federal requirements. Aerial mapping will be obtained for the preferred alternative. Right-of-way data sheets, which were originally planned to be prepared by Caltrans, will now be prepared by the consultant team. Staging concepts to upgrade an initial expressway to an ultimate freeway is also a new task. 2B) Additional Effort for Engineering Tasks: Additional effort will be required to complete the existing engineering tasks scoped in Contract No. 02-31-043. The utility coordination task will require a greater 23 level of effort due to the extensive new development that has occurred in the project area in the last three years. The traffic analysis will require additional budget due to the need to utilize the same model as the Mid County Parkway project, analyze additional intersections, and redo much of the analysis that was done during the purpose and need phase. The alternative refinement and final engineering tasks have become much larger than originally planned due to the extensive development pressure in the area and the need to coordinate with various development projects, in addition to the need to identify an interim expressway and ultimate freeway configuration for all alternatives. The Geometric Approval Drawings will require additional budget due to the need to develop drawings for both an initial expressway and an ultimate freeway configuration to satisfy Caltrans requirements, as well as the need to be refined in greater detail to ensure compatibility with adjacent developments. The Draft and Final Project Report documents will require more information to satisfy Caltrans requirements and also more review cycles to match the processing of the environmental document. 3) Environmental 3A) New Environmental Tasks: A number of new environmental tasks are included for the project. These tasks were not included in Contract No. 02-31-043. However, new information has been acquired for the project that merits their inclusion. Several new tasks have been included to complete new documentation to acquire approvals for NEPA/404 MOU activities with the federal agencies. Three new tasks have been included to develop, update, and maintain a dynamic description of the project. This is required because revisions to the project are constantly occurring to avoid new developments or minimize environmental impacts. A number of new biological tasks have been added to complete surveys or documentation required for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and to conduct a wetland delineation. New information about potential cultural resources sites has been acquired for the project. As a result, advanced tasks are being included at this time for additional compliance reports, consultation, and site testing and excavation. A new task to evaluate Section 4(f) resources is also included. Additional tasks are also included for public meetings and coordination with Hemet, San Jacinto, and Riverside County on new developments proposed within the project area. 24 3B) Additional Effort for Environmental Tasks: Additional effort will be required to complete the existing environmental tasks scoped in Contract No. 02-31-043. This effort is required because of (a) changes in the existing setting of the project, (b) changes in the alternatives or addition of new features of the project to be evaluated, or (c) changes in the policies or requirements for the approval of the project. a. The substantial development of the project area requires a more extensive analysis in the Community Impact Assessment report and the Relocation Impact Report. In addition, the increase in the number of new homes warrants a more extensive noise analysis for the project. b. The project study area has increased and new features are being considered for the project. The project study area has been increased to maintain flexibility for the location of project alternatives because of the construction of new developments and avoidance of environmental impacts. This was also a requirement by the federal agencies to ensure that alternative corridors would be maintained for the project. Because of a greater study area, additional effort is required to collect data and complete technical reports for the project. The new features that have been added to the project include the evaluation of borrow areas for fill material for the roadway, the potential reconstruction of the San Jacinto Branch Line near the Hemet -Ryan Airport, and the concept of building an initial expressway that can be converted to a freeway in the future. Because of these changes, additional effort is required to complete the technical reports for the project. In addition, as more structures are included in the alternatives for the project, additional analysis will be required to assess the visual impact of the project by local residents. c. The guidelines for the development of project documentation and the required review/approval process has changed since the issuance of Contract No. 02-31-043. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has updated their Standard Environmental Reference and template requirements for environmental technical reports and documents. Previous environmental documents included an individual chapter that described the affected environment, impacts, and mitigation for both NEPA and CEQA. The new templates require that there are separate chapters for both NEPA and CEQA. In addition, Caltrans is also requiring that their Headquarters, in addition to District 8, review all technical reports and environmental 25 documents for the project prior to FHWA review. This is a minimum of 6 sequential review cycles for both the draft and final environmental document. The combination of both of these items requires a substantial effort to complete the technical reports and environmental document that were included in Contract No. 02-31-043. Table 2. Cost Breakdown and Description of Amendment No. 1 Item No. Cost Description Amount 1a. New Management Tasks $406,898 1 b. Increased Management Effort $624,924 lc. Extension of Contract Duration $715,233 2a New Engineering Tasks $2,253,947 2b. Increased Engineering Effort $701,303 3a. New Environmental Tasks $3,247,494 3b. Increased Environmental Effort $2,987,929 4 Contingency $2,220,926 TOTAL $13,158,654 26 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 LEGEND: Final Proposed Alignments per Biological Survey Proposed Surface Road Realignments (to be done by cities) GRAND AVEN UE STOWE ROAD StMPaSQAl.ROAD.2,: . OLIVE AVENUE CREEK CHANNEL NEWPORT ROAD State Route 79 Biological Resource Surveys klare CH2MHILL *�► 1:54000 DEMDNSHI ORIDA AVENUE DOMENIGONI PARKWAY 0 RAMONA EXPRESSWAY HEMET-RYAN AIRPORT 4500 9000 Feet Final Realignment Alternatives K:\SR79\plots\PSR-PDS\sr79_nalignl0_24.apr 12/11/2001 • • • A B GRAND AVENUE Aerial Date: March 2003, AirPhotoUSA C DEVONSHIR STOWE ROAD SIMPSON ROA �II PARIMMMIf" D E TRES CERRITOS 25 —28 RIDA AVENUE F Diamond Valley Reservoir G • T'ON YW ETlUE H ATTACHMENT 3 J K:\SR79\plots\2004\concept\final\sr79_cpt070604.apr 07/06/2004 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 LEGEND: O Decision Point' Hazard Site' Unique Centerline' Shared Centerline' Study Area' Roadway Cross' Section (230 Feet) Cemetery II Church/Temple II EMWD Treatment' Facility Existing RPZII Future RPZII MSHCPII Criteria Cells Proposed Soboba Property''" Recreation Area' MESan Jacinto' Reservoir School" 0 Alternative Concept Map State Route 79 Project 4750 Feet 1: 57,000 Hazard Note: 1 - Leaking UST, cases closed; 2 - Solid Waste Landfills; 3 - Underground Storage Tank; 4 - HW Small Quantity Generator Sources: I - CH2MHILL; II - This contains geographic information owned by the County of Riverside CHZMHILL • 1 • ATTACHMENT 4 A GRAND AVEjJUEt B C SIMPSON ROA OL, .r1 AVENUE -: DOMENIGOOMPARIMM*4 . Aerial Date: March 2013, AirPhotoUSA D E TRES CERRITOS HULLS STETSQN ESPLAN ^.) F Diamond Valley Reservoir S. G AACOTONW• ,:L ENUE i• J H ill awl { 1 MAIN:STREET " K \SR79\plots \2004\concept \final\sr79cpt11300415.apr 11/30/2004 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LEGEND: O Decision Point 1 Project Limit I Alignment Review Area and' Roadway Cross Section (230 Feet) 0 1 Miles Alignment Review Areas and Renumbered Decision Points State Route 79 Realignment Project 0 1 Km 11 1: 57,000 Source: I - CH2MHILL CH2MHILL • • • ATTACHMENT 5 State Route 79 Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road Scope of Services and Cost Proposal for Project Report and Environmental Document Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission December 2004 Submitted by HILL 3550 Vine Street, Suite 320 Riverside, California 92507 0 Contents Task 1.0 Project Management 1-1 Task 2.0 NEPA/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks 2-1 Task 2.1 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, and Alternatives 2-1 Task 2.2 Final EIS Preferred /LEDPA Project Alternative 2-2 Task 2.3 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) 2-2 Task 3.0 Engineering 3-1 Task T2.03.01 Location Hydraulic Study 3-1 Task T2.03.02 Storm Water Data Report 3-2 Task T2.03.03 Onsite Drainage Studies 3-2 Task T2.03.04 Utility Coordination 3-2 Task T2.03.05 Geotechnical 3-3 Task T2.03.06 Traffic Analysis 3-3 Task T2.03.07 Conceptual Landscape Plan 3-4 Task T2.03.08 Stage Construction Concepts and TMP 3-5 Task T2.03.09 Alternative Refinement 3-5 Task T2.03.10 Cost Estimates 3-6 Task T2.03.11 Value Engineering 3-6 Task T2.03.12 Draft Project Report 3-7 Task T2.03.13 Aerial Mapping 3-8 Task T2.03.14 Final Engineering 3-9 Task T2.03.15 Advanced Planning Studies 3-9 Task T2.03.16 Right -of -Way Requirements 3-10 Task T2.03.17 Right -of -Way Data Sheets 3-10 Task T2.03.18 Geometric Approval Drawings 3-11 Task T2.03.19 Final Project Report 3-12 Task 4.0 Project Alternatives Description 4-1 Task 4.1 Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports 4-1 Task 4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Document 4-2 Task 5.0 Environmental Technical Reports 5-1 Task 5.1 Community Impact Assessment 5-4 Task 5.2 Relocation Impact Report 5-9 Task 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment 5-10 Task 5.4 Cultural Resources 5-10 Task 5.5 Paleontological Evaluation Report 5-17 Task 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report 5-18 Task 5.7 Water Quality Assessment Report 5-19 Task 5.8 Initial Site Assessment 5-20 Task 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report 5-21 Task 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis 5-22 Task 5.11 Natural Environment Study 5-26 Task 5.12 Biological Survey Reports 5-29 Task 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis 5-33 Task 6.0 Environmental Document 6-1 Task 6.1 Technical Section Updates 6-1 Task 6.2 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 6-1 Task 6.3 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation 6-5 Task 6.4 Draft EIS/EIR Circulation 6-5 Task 6.5 Public Involvement 6-6 Task 6.6 Final EIS/EIR 6-11 Task 6.7 Project Approvals 6-13 Task 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan 6-14 Task 7.0 Future Tasks Not Currently Scoped 7-1 Task 1.0 Project Management This Scope and Cost Proposal was prepared for the State Route (SR) 79 Project (Project) from Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road. This proposal includes activities required for the preparation of the Project Report (PR) and environmental document for the Project. This proposal is intended to replace the existing contract between Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and CH2M HILL for the Project. This proposal was prepared to include tasks within the 36 months for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. The cost estimate for the following tasks is based on the process requirements for this phase of the Project. It is understood that as this process occurs, new issues will be identified for the Project. The level of effort for these uncertain issues may or may not be included within each task of this proposal. CH2M HILL will update RCTC on the status of each task and notify them if the level of effort for a task has the potential to exceed this estimate. This information will be provided to RCTC in Task 1.6, Progress Reporting and Invoicing. In addition, new tasks will be required to be completed within this phase of the Project that are not included in this proposal. These items are listed in Task 7.0, Future Tasks Not Currently Scoped. As additional detail is defined for the Project, the level of effort for these tasks will be clarified so that an appropriate estimate can be prepared and submitted at a later date. This scope is based upon the suite of alternatives that are shown in the Project Alternative Segment map that was distributed at the PDT meeting in October 2004. One exception to this is that we have assumed that segments A, N, 0, and K on this figure will be deleted from the project and not carried forward into the EIS/EIR. Approval of this deletion is pending from the resource agencies, but we have based our scope on the assumption that this approval will be obtained. In addition to the No Build alternative, this scope includes consideration of two alternative corridors containing six Build alternatives, two borrow areas for roadway fill material, an indeterminate number of best management practice (BMP) areas for stormwater pollution prevention, and a railroad improvement area. Each of the six alternatives being addressed is composed of different combinatior}s of 18 project segments identified for the project. These alternatives have been defined as of December 15, 2004. Many of the tasks listed below are existing tasks that were in our original contract. However, the level of effort of these tasks has increased due to the extension of our contract. The original contract was for 24 months beginning in April 2002. We now project completion of this contract in December 2007, an increase of 45 months in duration for a total duration of 69 months. Task 1.1 Project Management • Acting as prime consultant, CH2M HILL will execute subcontracts with subconsultants and direct and coordinate their work. Prime contract terms and conditions will be incorporated into the subcontract agreements, as required. CH2M HILL will be the primary contact for RCTC. Under this task, CH2M HILL will also address contractual issues with RCTC as necessary. CH2M HILL will maintain Project files. '33 1-1 This task will also cover general management activities associated with completion of the PR, Environmental Technical Reports, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Document (ED), and other work activities conducted as part of this scope of services. Assumptions • The original contract was for 24 months beginning in April 2002. The time period for this amended scope of services and cost estimate includes the additional 45 months from April 2004 to December 2007). Task 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings will be held at RCTC M Riverside. The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss and resolve Project issues and coordinate activities. Agendas will be prepared and distributed prior to the meetings. Meeting minutes will be prepared and distributed within 10 working days of the meetings. It is assumed that there will be a total of 69 PDT meetings during the duration of this contract. Task 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings Meetings will be held with various resource agencies involved in the Project. These may include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). For the purposes of this scope of services and cost estimate, it is assumed that a total of 54 resource agency meetings will be held through the duration of this contract to facilitate coordination of the PR and ED. Task 1.4 Other Meetings Individual meetings will be held with various agencies and stakeholders involved in the Project. The meetings covered under this task are large meetings where formal presentations are required. These may include presentations to City Councils, Planning Commissions, RCTC Board, County Supervisors, or other entities. It is assumed that 15 of these meetings will be required. Task 1.5 Stakeholder Meetings Coordination with various stakeholders is anticipated to occur outside the scheduled PDT, resource agency, and other meetings. This coordination is anticipated to occur in the form of emails, telephone conference calls, or focused meetings. This coordination is anticipated to include various public and private entities, including the following: • Municipal Water District • Riverside County Flood Control • City of Hemet • City of San Jacinto • County of Riverside • 1-2 34 • • • • Local developers • Soboba and Pechanga Native American Tribes • Riverside Transit Agency • Hemet -Ryan Airport It is assumed that a total of 210 of these meetings will be required during the entire duration of this contract. Task 1.6 Progress Reporting and Invoicing Progress reports will be prepared and submitted every month with a brief narrative describing the work accomplished during the reporting period and discussion of outstanding issues and action items. The reports will also include any concerns or significant issues with recommendations for appropriate actions. The progress reports will correspond to the accounting cycles used for the preparation of invoices to facilitate Project oversight. Invoices will be prepared and include costs to date and percent complete. A total of up to 69 progress reports are anticipated. CH2M HILL will develop and maintain a detailed schedule for the Project using Primavera and update it monthly, as needed. Task 1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control CH2M HILL's quality assurance/quality control program will be implemented and maintained throughout the Project to ensure compliance with RCTC, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines in addition to ensuring technical and product quality. The Project Manager and senior staff will review deliverables prior to submittal. Task 1.8 Landowner Access Private property access is required to conduct field surveys as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. CH2M HILL will assist RCTC, and those entities that also assist RCTC, with the identification of landowners for parcels within the Project study area requiring field surveys. This task will include the development and maintenance of a GIS- based database to track the status of landowner access approval and property access issues within the Project study area and the preparation of written letters requesting private property access. This task will also include tasks to notify landowners of field activities. Task 1.9 GIS Data Management A Project Geographic Information System (GIS) database has been developed by CH2M HILL to include information regarding land use and biological resources within the Project study area. Additional information will be gathered to supplement this database and includes specific information pertinent to each of the disciplines reviewed in the ED. Data are planned to be acquired from the County of Riverside, cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, and USFWS. GIS data will be created in this task from field collection or digitizing existing hard copy data. CH2M HILL will develop and host an internal secure web -based data management system to allow CH2M HILL staff and subconsultants use of Project GIS/microstation data to facilitate the analysis for the preparation of both the environmental documents and Project Report. 35 1-3 Assumptions • No new aerials will be flown for the Project study area; however, a new aerial base map is anticipated to be incorporated into the Project figures once per year for 2005, 2006, and 2007. • This task is planned to support all Project tasks, and all products will provide background to all Project team members. • This task supports all disciplines of the Project team. No individual deliverables from this task are expected. • Rental of a global positioning system (GPS) unit and a four -wheel -drive vehicle is anticipated for each site visit. • No software or equipment will be purchased for this task. • CH2M HILL will host the web -based data management system. Task 1.ES Environmental Streamlining Application This task includes the effort CH2M HILL expended to assist RCTC in preparing an application to the United States Department of Transportation to request that the Federal Environmental Streamlining Executive Order be applied to the SR 79 Realignment project. Task 1.10 Project Website CH2M HILL will support the maintenance of the external Project website (www.sr79project.info) by providing Project -related information in the appropriate electronic format for easy upload conducted by Geographics, a firm under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Materials anticipated to be appropriate for posting on the Project website include Project text, newsletters, meeting notices, Project updates, and Project -related documents. All website materials will receive RCTC approval prior to being posted on the website. Assumptions • Website development is not anticipated in association with this task. • CH2M HILL will not host the website or develop electronic website pages. • 1-4 36 • • • Task 2.0 NEPA/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks These tasks will support obtaining the appropriate approvals in the integrated process defined in NEPA/Appendix A of the Clean Water Act (CWA)Section 404 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This process requires several tasks that must be conducted, as discussed below. Task 2.0 is a new task and was not included in the original scope of work. Task 2.1 Purpose and Need The original contract assumed that the Purpose and Need that was included in the PSR/PDS that was approved in February 2002 would be acceptable for use on the project. No budget was included in our original contract to address modifications to the Purpose and Need. Subsequently, changes to the Purpose and Need statement were required from April 2002 to its final approval in December 2003. This task includes the effort required to modify this document and coordinate with the resource agencies to gain its approval. Task 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection The original contract scope assumed that the alternatives shown in the PSR/PDS would be the ones carried forward into the EIS/EIR. Subsequently, it was determined that significant documentation would be needed to gain preliminary agreement from the resource agencies on the suite of alternatives to be carried forward into the environmental document. This task is to prepare the Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for Preliminary Agreement document, which was eventually approved in June 2004. Task 2.3 Updated Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection The Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection document was approved in June 2004. Subsequently, the project scoping meetings were held in September and October 2004. Input from the scoping meetings has led to the recommendation to delete the eastern alternative from the project (composed of segments K, N, and 0 that are shown in the Project Alternative Segment map that was distributed at the PDT meeting in October 2004). In addition, information has been received from MWD regarding the boundary of their reserve area south of Domenigoni Parkway. This information has led to the recommendation to delete one of the segments from the project (Segment A that is shown in the Project Alternative Segment map that was distributed at the PDT meeting in October 2004). The deletion of these segments needs to be documented and agreed to by the resource agencies. This task is to prepare the required documentation and coordinate with the resource agencies to gain approval of the deletion of these segments. 37 2-1 Task 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, and Alternatives This task will support obtaining final agreement from USACE, EPA, USFWS, Caltrans, and FHWA on the following: • NEPA purpose and need/404 basic and overall Project purpose • Criteria for alternative selection • Project alternatives to be evaluated in Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) / Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • Preliminary Preferred Alternative if determined feasible after the results of the Environmental Technical Reports To accomplish this task, Chapters 1 and 2 of the Draft EIS/EIR will be completed and circulated to RCTC, Caltrans, FHWA, USAGE, EPA, and USFWS for approval. Task 2.5 Final EIS Preferred ILEDPA Project Alternative This task will support the identification of the Final EIS NEPA preferred/Section 404 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to achieve NEPA Project purpose and need/404 basic Project purpose. This task will occur during the development of the Final EIS/EIR for the Project. Task 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) This task will support obtaining preliminary agreement of Preferred Alternative compliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. The following documents will be obtained for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR as a preliminary agreement of Section 404(b)(1) compliance as part of this task: • Written USFWS preliminary agreement in the Project mitigation plan as a result of earlier Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act consultation. • Written USACE and EPA preliminary agreement that the: - Final EIS NEPA preferred/Section 404 LEDPA [incomplete?] - Project will not significantly degrade the aquatic environment - Project mitigation plan and implementation schedule is adequate This task will occur during the development of the Final EIS/EIR for the Project. Assumptions • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), define? Federal Transit Administration? FTA, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are not included in the NEPA/404 MOU process. • • • 2-2 38 • Other tasks listed in Appendix A of the NEPA/404 MOU and required for the Project are included in other tasks in this proposal. 2-3 39 • • • Task 3.0 Engineering These tasks lead to the preparation and approval of the Final Project Report. Many of these tasks were included in the original scope of work, while some tasks are new to the project. For many of the tasks that were included in the original scope of work, the level of effort and the conditions of the project have changed significantly. It is our intent to use the following scope of work for the engineering part of the project as a replacement for the scope of work that is included in the original contract. Task T2.03.01 Location Hydraulic Study The Location Hydraulic Study will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and will include completion of the Caltrans Location Hydraulic Study Form. Tasks that will be conducted include the following: 1. Contact Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), USACE, Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD), and local cities to obtain existing hydrologic and hydraulic information including master plans of drainage, hydrologic and hydraulic reports, flood insurance studies, and FEMA maps. The information collected will be reviewed to determine existing flow rates, flow patterns, and areas of hydrologic concerns such as the vernal pool complex in west Hemet. 2. Based upon review of information collected in the task above, preliminary hydrology calculations will be performed for those areas of hydrologic concern, for which existing information is not available. Hydrologic calculations will be conducted using the rational method or synthetic unit hydrograph method for the 10 -year and 100 -year storms, in accordance with RCFCD criteria. 3. Preliminary hydraulic calculations for major water courses paralleling or crossing the Project Build alternatives and No Build alternative will be conducted for the existing and proposed conditions to determine impacts to the floodplain, including any longitudinal encroachments, and to determine the preliminary findings for drainage structures required to pass the 100 -year flow. Culverts and bridges will be evaluated as potential Project design elements. The hydraulic calculations will be based on the HEC-RAS analysis or other appropriate method. 4. The information in tasks 1 through 3 will be summarized in the Location Hydraulic Study form for each major crossing. Assumptions • It is assumed that a maximum of 3 separate hydrologic analyses will be conducted to determine the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events. • It is assumed that a maximum of 5 separate hydraulic analyses will be conducted to determine the Project drainage structures required to handle the 100 -year flow. 40 3-1 • Topographic maps required for the hydraulic calculations (with detail at the 4 -foot contour level) will be obtained from RCFCD. • Information collected in support of the Location Hydraulic Study will be used to identify hydrology and hydraulic impacts in the Floodplain Evaluation Report prepared under Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate. Task T2.03.02 Storm Water Data Report Building on information gathered as part of the Storm Water Quality Assessment, a Storm Water Data Report will be prepared in accordance with the latest version of the Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide. The Storm Water Data Report will include a Project description, define site data and storm water quality design issues, discuss any RWQCB agreements, describe proposed design pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used on the Project , describe proposed permanent treatment BMPs to be used on the Project, provide construction cost information and identify locations where drain inlet stenciling is required. Attachments as outlined in Appendix E of the Project Planning and Design Guide will be prepared. Task T2.03.03 Onsite Drainage Studies Based upon the preliminary roadway design and the Location Hydraulic Study for the six Build alternatives, conceptual onsite drainage design will be performed. A conceptual onsite drainage analysis will be performed to determine locations for onsite drainage systems and potential treatment BMPs to be included in the Storm Water Quality Data report. Conceptual drainage maps will be prepared showing location of the drainage systems and potential treatment BMPs. Task T2.03.04 Utility Coordination Purpose To identify all of the existing utilities affected by the Project, design the alternatives to be compatible with plans for future utilities, and accurately estimate the costs associated with utility relocations for each of the six Build alternatives. Methodology The CH2M HILL team will gather as -built information on the existing utilities in the Project area. We will contact each of the utility companies in the area and obtain their plans for future facilities. This information will all be loaded into our Computer -aided drafting and design (CADD) system and utilized during the refinement of the alternatives. Existing rights or needed agreements will be identified. Relocation requirements will be approximated to complete cost estimates. All necessary information will be provided to support the completion of the Right -of -Way Data Sheets. • 3-2 41 • • • Deliverables • Depiction of all existing utilities in the Project area in a CADD file. • Cost estimates for utility relocations to be included in the PR. Task T2.03.05 Geotechnical Purpose To provide the geotechnical support necessary for completion of the PR. Methodology CH2M HILL will review readily available geologic maps, published literature, stereoscopic aerial photographs, and in-house information. We will also review preliminary Project plans, as -built Project plans and specifications, log of test boring sheets, soil reports, and bridge foundation reports and/or plans provided by the client, if available. We will conduct a preliminary geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial conditions along the alignments, and we will assess the general geologic conditions and seismic hazards affecting the area to evaluate their potential impacts on the Project. This scope of work does not include subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, nor does it include detailed mapping of the area. Data will be compiled, and we will analyze the data obtained from our review and site reconnaissance. We will prepare a preliminary geotechnical and foundation report presenting the results of our data review, as well as our conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of the Project's conceptual design and construction for inclusion in the PR, for contribution to the advanced planning studies for the 15 bridges. Deliverable • Preliminary Geotechnical and Foundation Report Task T2.03.06 Traffic Analysis Purpose To provide the traffic analysis necessary for the completion of the Project Report, to support the evaluation and refinement of alternatives, and to support the analysis for the environmental documentation (traffic/transportation, noise, air quality, and other disciplines). Methodology CH2M HILL will develop a summary of existing conditions in the corridor, for use in the Project Report and EIS. Traffic volumes will be summarized on the basis of available traffic counts and new traffic counts to be made in October/ November 2004. These will include up to thirty (30) intersections (AM and PM peak periods) and 50 screenline locations (24 - hours counts). Vehicle classification will be determined, using counts at up to ten (10) locations along SR -79 and available Caltrans data. Summaries of the existing roadways 42 3-3 (classifications and number of lanes), transit services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be developed. CH2M HILL will develop 2030 traffic forecasts for the no -build and six Build alternatives. The traffic analysis for SR -79 will be based on the same modeling process as that for the Mid -County Parkway (MCP) project. The subarea model being developed in conjunction with the MCP study will be used, with appropriate refinements and adjustments as necessary. Traffic analysis will include daily volume/capacity analysis at screenline locations, intersection level of service (LOS) analysis at up to 38 intersections, merge/ diverge/weave analysis for mainline SR -79, and queuing analysis at selected ramp terminal intersections. Analysis will be conducted for 2030 no -build and build alternatives. Up to six (6) variations of the basic design alternatives will be analyzed; these will not include changes to the travel demand forecasts. In addition, CH2M HILL will assess the opening year (2010) requirements for SR -79 mainline lanes and ramp terminal intersections. Traffic volumes will be estimated by interpolating from 2030 forecasts; no new travel demand model runs will be conducted. All forecasting and traffic analysis will be conducted by following a "Traffic Methodology" plan, developed for the project. This document will be approved by the County and Caltrans. Deliverables • Traffic section of Project Report • Traffic analysis report Task T2.03.07 Conceptual Landscape Plan Purpose To depict the type of planting material and irrigation system requirement for various typical corridor locations. Methodology CH2M HILL will prepare a conceptual landscaping plan for various typical corridor locations such as cut and fill slopes, bridge approaches, BMP sites, and possible median locations where a split profile section exists. This plan shall depict the type of planting material and irrigation system requirements. Deliverable • Conceptual Landscape Plan • 43 3-4 • • • Task T2.03.08 Stage Construction Concepts and TMP Purpose To identify opportunities for staging the construction of the Project to meet funding constraints. Methodology It is not likely that sufficient funding will be established to construct the entire relocation of SR 79 in a short time period. It is more likely that limited funding will become available, requiring that the relocation of SR 79 be constructed in stages. The concepts for construction staging will need to be discussed and addressed in the ED to determine their impacts on the local circulation system. CH2M HILL will develop staging concepts based upon three different funding scenarios, which will be obtained from the RCTC. These concepts will be analyzed and presented in the PR for each of the six Build alternatives. Concepts for the possible future expansion of the facility will also be prepared. This task also includes the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the Project. The TMP will be prepared per Caltrans Headquarters' TMP Guidelines (July 2001). Key sections will include existing traffic conditions, a description of the construction activities, expected construction impacts (with a brief description of conceptual staging plans), traffic handling strategies and requirements, TMP strategies (public awareness, motorist information, incident management, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and alternate routes), contingency plans, and implementation and monitoring. The TMP will include a high-level cost estimate. CH2M HILL will attend up to five (5) meetings with affected agencies and other groups to discuss the TMP for the Project. A draft and final version of the TMP will be prepared. Deliverables • Stage construction concepts and cost estimates to be included in the PR • Traffic Management Plan Task T2.03.09 Alternative Refinement Purpose To continue the refinement of the six Build alternatives based upon comments received through the Project development process. The alternatives will also be expanded during the PR phase to be a fully developed highway configuration, rather than the simple centerlines that have been utilized during the (PSR(/ (PDS) phase. Methodology The alignments will be expanded upon by taking the basic centerlines and geometrics developed during the previous phases and adding additional details. As comments are received on the various design configurations, modifications will be made to the six Build alternatives. The six Build alternatives will be presented in the Project Report by plotting them on layout sheets at a scale of 1:1,000. Mainline profiles will be developed for the six 44 3-5 Build alternatives. Ramp profiles will be developed only where a grade -separated interchange will be built with the initial construction. For the purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that the only grade -separated interchanges in the initial construction will be at Ramona Expressway, Florida Avenue, Stetson/Grand, and Domenigoni Parkway. Superelevation diagrams will be prepared for SR 79 but not for crossroads or ramps. Deliverables • Design drawings for the six Build alternatives that can be used for analysis during the Draft Project Report and Draft EIS/EIR development Task T2.03.10 Cost Estimates Purpose To develop cost estimates for each of the six (6) Build alternatives for comparison, leading to the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Methodology Using the templates and guidelines from the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), cost estimates will be prepared for the six Build alternatives. For the Draft PR, cost estimates will be prepared for the six Build alternatives utilizing the "Draft Project Report Cost Estimate" guidelines described in Chapter 20, Article 4, of the Caltrans PDPM. For the Final PR, it is assumed that the Preferred Alternative will have been selected. One cost estimate will be prepared, following the guidelines under "Project Report Cost Estimate" in Chapter 20, Article 5, of the Caltrans PDPM. Deliverables • Three Draft PR -level cost estimates for the Draft PR and one (1) PR -level cost estimate for the Final PR Task T2.03.11 Value Engineering Methodology For this Project, a formal Value Analysis (VA) will be required per FHWA requirements, that is any Project in excess of $25 million of costs shall be subject to a formal VA study. For this Project it is recommended that prior to the formal study with the assembled VA team that an informal VA study be conducted for the entire Project. This will help better identify the constraints that exist to the Project and better serve to document the reasons certain alternatives are designed the way they are. Subsequent to this study and following delivery of the pertinent technical information required for a VA study, the formal study will be scheduled utilizing Caltrans on -call VA study facilitators. This study is estimated to take 1 to 2 weeks to complete not including the report and follow responses to the study. This VA should then satisfy the requirements of the FHWA for this Project. • 3-6 45 • • • Initial Value Engineering A team of experts in the fields of highway and bridge design from CH2M HILL, along with RCTC and others will perform an initial analysis review. This team will consist of individuals with no prior exposure to the Project so that their comments are fair and unbiased. This team will be assembled to review the engineering plans. This information shall be provided to each team at least 3 weeks in advance of a review meeting to discuss their results. The results of the review meeting shall be summarized in a memorandum to be prepared by CH2M HILL. Each Value Engineering (VE)/Peer review recommendation will be formally evaluated and sufficient justification made for its acceptance or rejection. All approved changes shall be incorporated into the Preliminary Engineering plans. Formal Value Engineering Analysis The formal VA study will consist of a team of reviewers who again have not participated in the Project yet are familiar with the requirements of the design for the Project. The members of the VA study team will be dictated by RCTC and Caltrans. To initiate the process, CH2M HILL shall prepare a document for distribution to the VA team consisting of the following: • Conceptual alignment plans • Traffic study information with average daily traffic (ADT) and directional movements for each interchange • Advance Planning Studies for the key structures along the corridor • Utility conflicts mapping • Right -of -Way constraints mapping • Cost estimates for the various segments of the Project The VA team will review this information and prepare itself for meeting with the Project team to discuss options for improving the quality of the Project, resolve conflicts with stakeholders on the Project, provide alternative solutions to difficult transportation issues, and identify cost saving alternatives to the Project. From the meeting, CH2M HILL shall prepare responses to the comments received at the meeting and deliver a report identifying these, if any of the recommendations that will be implemented. Discussion for each of the alternative solutions offered is required to completely address each option. At the conclusion of the VA study, CH2M HILL shall be prepared to identify the final geometry for the Project alternatives and include as appropriately into the PR. Task T2.03.12 Draft Project Report Purpose To prepare a Draft PR to RCTC requirements and Caltrans standards. 46 3-7 Methodology A Draft PR will be prepared, which will present six alternatives from different combinations of the 18 project segments. The PR will be prepared in accordance with current Caltrans format requirements for PRs. The Draft PR will be prepared to present the six alternatives on a comparable basis. A Preferred Alternative will not be selected until after the Draft PR is prepared. CH2M HILL will not prepare any geometric approval drawings (GADs) or advanced planning studies (APSs) in the Draft PR. These will be included in the Final PR. The Draft PR will be submitted for review and comment to RCTC, Caltrans, and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. CH2M HILL anticipates one review meeting to discuss comments. Caltrans will perform FHWA coordination. Deliverable • Draft PR (50 printed copies) Task T2.03.13 Aerial Mapping Purpose The purpose of the aerial mapping is to provide mapping of the Preferred Alternative for final engineering and advance planning studies and for preparation of right-of-way exhibits and GADs. Methodology This task includes mapping of a Preferred Alternative to be selected from one of the three alternate alignments currently being studied. It is assumed that the selected alternative corridor to be mapped will be approximately 15 miles in length with an average corridor width of about 800 feet. All work will comply with Caltrans specifications, standards, and requirements. The work will include obtaining aerial photography of the alignment, performing field surveys of the photo control points, and producing 1"=50' scale photogrametric mapping. The mapping process will follow Caltrans requirements for submitting materials to Caltrans for their review before and after flying the aerial photography and before and after producing the mapping, Deliverables To Caltrans • Control layout diagram • GPS report • Aeotriangulation report • Digital mapping files • 47 3-8 Task T2.03.14 Final Engineering Following the review of the Draft PR, the Preferred Alternative will be selected. Additional refinement will be done to the design of the Preferred Alternative for the Final PR. This task encompasses the general engineering work that will be needed to finalize the design concepts for the Preferred Alternative to support the preparation of the Final PR. This task will also include responding to comments from the Draft PR as they relate to making revisions to any of the other alternatives that will still be presented in the Final PR. Task T2.03.15 Advanced Planning Studies Purpose The purpose of the APS plans is to develop a preliminary structure design for the purpose of establishing reliable cost estimates as part of the PR for the state highway Project. Methodology There are a number of guidelines and procedures by Caltrans on the preparation of APSs. In general, the preparation of the APS shall follow the Caltrans Memo to Designers 1-8. Additional guidelines are provided by Caltrans - Office of Special Funded Project (OSFP) Information and Procedures Guide, dated August 2001. In order to establish a high reliability for the proposed design and the cost estimates, the design team for the APS plans must review a number of design parameters that may impact such design. A list of the design parameters may include the following: • Preliminary roadway design -alignment and profiles • Preliminary surveyed information on critical controls - vertical clearance and lateral clearance • Preliminary staging plans and detour plans (on and off the structure) • Utility survey and location maps • Route concept and future widening plan • Special railroad requirements • Special foundation requirements, including scour critical work • Special aesthetic treatment • Environmental mitigation that may affect the structure type selection A total of five APSs will be prepared as part of the PR. The name, length, and width of the proposed five bridges are the following: • Ramona Expressway Bridge (Span = 80.00 meters, Width = 23.40 meters) • Florida Avenue Bridge (Span = 59.00 meters, Width = 31.60 meters) • Railroad Branch Line Overhead (Span =180.00 meters, Width = 23.40 meters) • Salt Creek Channel Bridge (Span = 200 meters, Width = 23.40 meters) 3-9 48 • Domenigoni Parkway Bridge (Span = 90.00 meters, Width = 23.40 meters) Deliverables • Five APSs for the above -mentioned bridges Task T2.03.16 Right -of -Way Requirements Building upon the landowner access database developed during the previous phase of the Project, the County of Riverside will perform records research to obtain the most up-to-date County Assessor's parcel maps and County rights -of -way maps of the Project limits, street dedications, deed information, and owner's name. CH2M HILL will compile a list of affected parcels including ownership, land use, and proposed take and remainder areas. CH2M HILL will prepare right-of-way Requirement maps depicting all of the property that needs to be acquired for each of the alternatives. These requirements will include permanent acquisitions as well as temporary and permanent easements. This information will be used as the basis for preparing the Right -of - Way Data Sheets. Task T2.03.17 Right -of -Way Data Sheets Purpose To estimate the right-of-way acquisition costs for each of the six Build alternatives for inclusion in the PR. Right of Way Data Sheets list the estimated cost of acquiring the right of way of each impacted parcel. It includes such costs as the value of the property taken, excess land damages, loss of goodwill, major rehabilitation, utility relocation, relocation assistance payments, clearance/demolition, title and escrow, and condemnation costs. The DRID/DIRS is required for all projects that displace persons, businesses, or farm or non-profit organizations. Its purpose is to assess the possible relocation impact an alternative might have on those displacees. The assessment will follow the requirements in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook, Volume 4 and provide documentation specified for by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The early right of way studies will entail the following tasks: ✓ Perform a field inspection of each short-listed alternative. ✓ Ascertain number of parcels ✓ Determine types of improvements ✓ Identify possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.) ✓ Estimate family sizes on residential relocations • 3-10 49 • • • ✓ Compile information on neighborhood characteristics, ✓ Determine price ranges for land and improvements ✓ Determine alternative housing available ✓ Determine minority percentages, etc. ✓ Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment ✓ Prepare a conceptual relocation study ✓ Prepare a land use map Deliverables: • ROW Data Sheets for all alternatives in Draft PR • ROW Data Sheets updated for selected alternative in Final PR • Task T2.03.18 Geometric Approval Drawings Purpose To obtain geometric approval of the Preferred Alternative in conjunction with the preparation of the Final PR. Methodology GADs will be prepared for the Preferred Alternative. GADs for the other five Build alternatives will not be prepared. The GADs for the Preferred Alternative will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines. They will show horizontal and vertical alignments for the mainline and all ramps. Profiles with superelevations will also be shown for the mainline and all ramps. Preliminary striping will be shown to depict the number of lanes at each intersection. It is assumed that GADs will be prepared for the interim condition that will reflect the initial construction of a controlled -access expressway and also for the ultimate condition of a full freeway for the length of the project. Deliverables • One set of GADs for the initial construction of a controlled -access expressway for the Preferred Alternative, for approval by Caltrans • One set of GADs for the ultimate construction of a freeway for the Preferred Alternative, for approval by Caltrans 50 3-11 Task T2.03.19 Final Project Report Purpose To incorporate comments on the Draft PR and prepare a Final PR. Methodology CH2M HILL will review and incorporate comments on the Draft PR and prepare a Final PR for review by RCTC, Caltrans, and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. It is assumed that only minor adjustments to elements of the Preferred Alternative will be required. CH2M HILL anticipates two review meetings at this stage. Deliverable • Final PR (50 printed copies) • Electronic Copy of Final PR • 51 3-12 � Task 4.0 Project Alternatives Description Task 4.0 is a new task and was not included in the previous contract as a stand-alone task. Task 4.1 Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports • • A comprehensive Project alternatives description will be developed to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternatives in the Environmental Technical Reports and the ED. The Project alternatives description will be based on those presented in Figure L1 of the Final Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for Preliminary Agreement document (CH2M HILL, June 22, 2004), feedback obtained from the public scoping phase of the Project (see Subtask 6.5.1 of this scope of services and cost estimate), and engineering work completed for the Project. The Project alternatives description will provide an equally detailed description of the Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternative. The discussion of Build alternatives will identify common and unique design features between alternatives. The Project alternatives section will also address alternatives previously considered and withdrawn from further analysis. Two alignment corridors for the Project Build alternatives will be included. These are Alternative Corridor 1 and Alternative Corridor 2. Deliverables Subsequent to each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the text to respond to review comments. The deliverables for the Project alternatives description are identified below. • Administrative Draft Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC • Draft Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 2 Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final Project alternatives description for inclusion in the Environmental Technical Reports Assumptions • No major changes will occur in the Project alternatives that will require additional data analyses or document revisions after Task 5.0 has begun. Additionally, although it is anticipated that the Project alternatives description may change slightly during the course of preparing the Environmental Technical Reports, changes requiring revisions to the Environmental Technical Reports will not be required. 52 4-1 Task 4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Document After the Environmental Technical Reports have been completed and finalized, it is anticipated that a minor modification of the Project alternatives description will be required prior to preparation of the ED. This task is limited to minor changes in the design and components of the Project alternatives and does not include the addition of new or relocated alignments outside the Project study area. Deliverables Subsequent to each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the text to respond to review comments. The deliverables for the modified Project alternatives description are identified below: • Administrative Draft modified Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC • Draft modified Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 modified Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 2 modified Project alternatives description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final modified Project alternatives description for inclusion in the ED Assumptions • No major changes will occur in the Project alternatives that will require additional data analyses or document revisions as part of this task. • The addition of new or relocated alignments outside the Project study area is not included in the scope of services and cost estimate. • Although it is anticipated that the Project alternatives description may change slightly during the course of preparing the ED, changes requiring revisions to the Environmental Technical Reports will not be required. • Three copies each to RCTC and Caltrans for submittal. • One set of comments will be received from each agency. • • • 4-2 53 • • • Task 5.0 Environmental Technical Reports Task 5.0 replaces Task 3.0 in the original contract. Environmental Technical Reports will be prepared consistent with the requirements of the NEPA and the CEQA, as well as related environmental statutes and regulations, including Caltrans and FHWA guidance. The Environmental Technical Reports will be prepared to cover statutory documentation requirements (e.g., to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [36 Code of Federal Regulations {CFR} 800] and Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act [49 United States Code {U.S.C.} 303]. The Environmental Technical Reports will also identify, evaluate, and analyze potential environmental impacts of the Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternative to provide the basis for the analysis and findings in the joint ED required for Project approval (described in Task 6.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate). The following Environmental Technical Reports will be prepared in association with the Project: • Community Impact Assessment (and Evaluation of Section 4(f) issues, attached as an appendix) • Relocation Impact Report • Traffic Technical Report (see engineering Task 3.0) • Visual Impact Assessment • Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) • Archaeological Survey Report (appendix to HPSR) • Archaeological Evaluation Report • Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) • Paleontological Identification Report • Location Hydraulic Study (see engineering Task 3.0) • Floodplain Evaluation Report • Water Quality Assessment Report • Preliminary Geotechnical and Foundation Report (see engineering Task 3.0) • Initial Site Assessment • Air Quality Technical Report • Technical Noise Analysis • Natural Environment Study • Wetland Delineation Report • Biological Survey Reports (species surveys including burrowing owl, rare plants, riparian birds, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and mammals) The Caltrans guidance listed below was used to determine the format and content of the Environmental Technical Reports for the Project. • Style Guide for Environmental Documents (Caltrans, April 2002) • Streamlined EIR/EIS Outline (Caltrans, March 10, 2003) 54 5-1 • Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Annotated Outline (Caltrans, March 10, 2003) • Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Chapter 36 - Environmental Impact Report (Caltrans, June 29, 2004) All Environmental Technical Reports will generally include the following sections: • Introduction. This section will identify the purpose of each technical report and include a standardized statement of purpose and need for the Project and Project alternatives description (developed as part of Task 4.0 in this scope of services and cost estimate). • Regulatory Setting. This section will provide a discussion of the regulations that govern the analysis of potential environmental impacts with respect to the specific resource area covered by the technical report. • Affected Environment. This section will describe the physical environmental conditions in the region where the Project will occur as they exist at the time that the Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation was published/posted for the Project. The affected environment will set the baseline physical conditions by which a determination can be made about a Project impact. • Environmental Consequences (including permanent and temporary impacts). This section will discuss the impacts of each Build alternative and the No Build alternative. The assessment of impacts will include a discussion of direct and indirect impacts under two separate discussions: permanent (long-term) and temporary (short-term) impacts. The Environmental Consequences section will involve the identification of evaluation criteria for specific disciplines to help determine whether the impacts identified under NEPA are considered to pose a substantial impact to the resource area covered by the technical report. • Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. This section will identify measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts identified in the Environmental Consequences section. If the implementation of a mitigation measure is determined to cause an impact in addition to the impact of the Project alternatives, the discussion of the mitigation measure will include a discussion of the resulting impact. • Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section will describe any impacts that cannot be avoided through Project redesign or the implementation of mitigation measures. • Cumulative Impacts. This section will describe impacts resulting from the combination of potential Project impacts with impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The assessment of cumulative impacts will address impacts that are individually minor, but collectively substantial. • California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation. This section will analyze potentially significant Project impacts under CEQA based on the Appendix G, Environmental Checklist questions. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts identified under CEQA to a less than significant level will be identified. • 5-2 55 • • • • Summary of Agency/Public Consultation and Coordination. This section will summarize consultation and coordination activities conducted during the preparation of the technical report. Meetings, workshops, and telephone/conference calls will be included and agency representatives and public individuals involved will be identified. Each consultation/coordination entry will include a description of the coordination conducted to date. • Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments. This section will provide a table summarizing the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments associated with each mitigation measure identified in the Environmental Consequences section of the technical report. • List of Preparers. This section will identify the credentials of all personnel (individuals, firms, or agency [ies]) responsible for the preparation of the technical report. • References. This section will identify the source of outside materials used to prepare the technical report. The references list should include books, journal articles, reports, correspondence (including e-mail), phone, and website sources. Deliverables The deliverables for each of the Environmental Technical Reports will include a separate bound report with five submittals corresponding to each review cycle, as listed below. After each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the technical report text to respond to review comments prior to distributing the subsequent draft. The deliverables are the following: • Administrative Draft Technical Report for submittal to RCTC • Draft Technical Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 Technical Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 2 Technical Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final Technical Report Distribution of the Environmental Technical Reports will be conducted as follows for each review cycle: • Four hard copies of each Draft Environmental Technical Report for submittal to RCTC • Five hard copies and one CD of each Environmental Technical Report for submittal to Caltrans The Final Environmental Technical Reports will be provided as follows: • Up to 35 hard copies of each Final Environmental Technical Report • Up to 20 CDs containing the Final Environmental Technical Reports will be provided for RCTC and Caltrans use, upload of the Final Environmental Technical Reports to the Project website, and to Riverside Blueprint for efficient and cost-effective reproduction of hard copies at the public's request 56 5-3 Assumptions • The cost of printing each individual technical report is estimated to be $100, except for the Community Impact Assessment, which is estimated to cost $200 each. • The Environmental Technical Reports will not be included as technical appendices in the ED. • No separate, stand-alone Energy Report is required. A section will be included in the EIS/EIR to address energy (see Task 6.0 Assumptions). • No separate, stand-alone Coastal Zone Impact Report is required. Coastal zone impacts will be addressed in the Community Impacts Assessment, as part of Land Use. • It is assumed that each Environmental Technical Report will analyze a maximum of six (6) Build alternatives, along with the No Build alternative. • The analysis for the Project will occur by segment, with summary tables for each alternative. • The Environmental Technical Reports for the Project have been streamlined to be easily incorporated into the ED, which avoids unnecessary additional or duplicative effort. Changes to the templates (as of submission of this proposal) that require re -write of technical information in the EIS/EIR are not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. • Field visits conducted in support of the Environmental Technical Reports will include rental of a four -wheel -drive vehicle. • One set of comments will be received from each agency. Task 5.1 Community Impact Assessment The Community Impact Assessment will address the following eight resource areas: • Land Use • Growth • Farmlands/ Agricultural Lands • Community Character and Cohesion • Relocations • Environmental Justice • Economics • Utilities/Services In addition, Section 4(0 resources will be addressed in an evaluation attached as an appendix to the Community Impact Assessment. Subtask 5.1.1 Land Use The land use section of the Community Impact Assessment will address the following topic areas: • 57 5-4 • • • • Current land use types in the Project study area and specific development proposals and trends in the Project vicinity and community (ies). Cross-references to the Growth section of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. • The Project's consistency with applicable state, regional, and local plans, including transportation plans (Regional Transportation Plan [RTPs] and Regional Transportation Improvement Program [RTIPs]), regional growth plans, habitat conservation plans, City and County general and community plans, coastal zone management plans (statewide and/or local), and wild and scenic rivers. • Parks and recreation, including equestrian trails, recreational bikeways, and other recreational trails in the Project vicinity. Subtask 5.1.2 Growth The Growth section of the Community Impact Assessment will address the potential for growth in terms of the Project's relationship to responding to planned growth determined by that local government. The analysis will consider data on economic, social, political, and environmental factors. Cross-references to the Land Use section of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Subtask 5.1.3 Farmlands/Agricultural Lands NEPA and the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (USC 4201-4209, and its regulations, 7 CFR Chapter VI Part 658), require the lead (federal) agency to coordinate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to examine the effects of farmland conversion before approving any federal action. Coordination with the NRCS will be conducted to assess farmland/agricultural land in the Project area. This task will include the completion of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD 1006. The rating form provides a basis for assessing the extent of farmland impacts relative to federally established criteria. A determination as to whether the Project location has farmland that is subject to the FPPA will be requested from NRCS and discussed in the Community Impact Assessment. Coordination with local agriculture commissioner and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will also be conducted as appropriate. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for parcels exceeding 100 acres is considered to be "of statewide, regional, or areawide significance," and thus subject to additional noticing and review requirements under CEQA. The Williamson Act of 1965 is the state's principal policy for the preservation of agricultural and open -space land. The main purposes of the Williamson Act are to preserve agricultural land and to encourage open space preservation and efficient urban growth. Williamson Act lands are classified as prime or non -prime. These lands can also be considered as Open Space of Statewide Significance. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following: • Identification of impacts on agricultural lands and on Prime, Unique, or Faiinland of Statewide Importance in the Project area • Identification of Williamson Act contract lands in the Project area 58 5-5 • Identification of agricultural parcels that would be bisected, rendering the parcel not viable for agricultural uses • Identification of the percentage of the county's total prime farmland that will be lost or affected by the Project • Completion of a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating" (Form AD -1006) for inclusion in the Community Impact Assessment. The form contains two parts: (1) the Land Evaluation and (2) the Site Assessment (or LESA). • Coordination with local agriculture commissioner, USDA and/ or the NRCS, as appropriate • Identification of alternatives that will reduce or avoid impacts to farmlands Subtask 5.1.4 Community Character and Cohesion The Community Character and Cohesion section of the Community Impact Assessment will address the Project community's character ("setting") and the cohesiveness of the community and/or segments within the co munity. The analysis will be based upon the development of a community profile, which will summarize the social and economic characteristics of the area where the Project will be built. Developing a community profile will include defining community boundaries and neighborhood or subdivision boundaries, locating businesses, homes and activity centers of potential impact, especially those bordering Project alternatives and near interchanges, and determining demographic characteristics, economic base, location of community facilities, and other relevant characteristics for the Project area. Areas of the Project community that have elderly persons, disabled persons, transit -dependent individuals and minority groups will be specifically considered. Key issues that will be considered as part of this task include the following: • Increasing or decreasing public access • Dividing neighborhoods • Separating residences from community facilities • Changes in quality of life • Increasing urbanization or isolation Cross-references to the Growth section of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Subtask 5.1.5 Relocations The Relocations section of the Community Impact Assessment will describe the existing types and numbers of housing and businesses within the Project area and address the Project's potential to displace them. The availability of alternate sites to accommodate those potentially displaced will also be discussed. The Relocations section of the Community Impact Assessment will be based upon a separate, stand-alone technical report, the Relocation Impact Report, discussed in Task 5.2 of this scope of services and cost estimate. • • • 5-6 59 • • Subtask 5.1.6 Environmental Justice All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. This EO directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The Environmental Justice section of the Community Impact Assessment will address low-income and minority populations within the Project area. Cross-references to the Growth and Economics sections of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following: • Identification of any minority or low-income populations in the Project area • Discussion of the beneficial and adverse impacts on the overall population and on minority and low-income populations or communities • Determination of whether impacts identified are "disproportionate" through an analysis of U.S. Census demographic data, including economic indicators such as median income and housing costs, and ethnicity data Subtask 5.1.7 Economics The Economics section of the Community Impact Assessment will address regional employment and unemployment levels; work force availability, location and size; and employment centers likely to experience growth. The population of the community and region will also be considered, together with reasonable growth rates, within the Project area. Cross-references to the Growth, Relocations, and Environmental Justice sections of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following: • Incorporate demographic information from population analysis and obtain information from published sources regarding recent trends and projected changes in the labor force, unemployment rate, and income levels in the Project area. • Describe the economic base of the region and document any relevant employment policies in the plans of the affected jurisdictions. • Document the tax structures of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet and the County of Riverside, and analyze the potential for fiscal impacts to those jurisdictions. • Estimate the potential loss of tax revenues associated with right-of-way acquisition and displacements using parcel information developed in the Relocation analysis and tax information from the Riverside County Tax Assessor's office. The results of the analysis will be comparisons of the initial property tax impacts of each alternative. Estimates will be prepared by the city and compared to total tax revenues for each city to give perspective to the magnitude of the initial property tax impacts of the Project to various jurisdictions. 60 5-7 • Estimate the potential for sales tax revenue changes using information from the Board of Equalizations and using information from a commercial database that will be purchased for this Project. The database will also be used to estimate the number and occupational type of employees of any firms likely to be displaced by the Project. • Assess the potential for property value impacts associated with the Project qualitatively on the basis of the effects of similar projects elsewhere. • Analyze the potential for impacts to businesses bypassed by the Project alternatives. The types of businesses that will be bypassed by the Project will be documented, with particular attention paid to those businesses that might be heavily dependent on sales to pass -by customers. The potential for impacts will be assessed on the basis of documented results of similar projects in California and elsewhere in the United States. Subtask 5.1.8 Utilities/Services The Utilities/Services section of the Community Impact Assessment will address utility systems that serve the Project area, including water, sewer, natural gas, electric power, and telecommunication systems. Public services will also be addressed including law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services, schools, libraries, and solid waste disposal facilities. Increases in utility consumption and community service needs associated with the Project will be estimated based on population estimates. Coordination with the efforts conducted under engineering Task 3.0 will be conducted to collect the appropriate existing and future planned utility information necessary for this analysis. Subtask 5.1.9 Evaluation of Section 4(f) Issues The evaluation of Section 4(0 issues will be included as an appendix to the Community Impact Assessment and will address the Project's potential to use publicly owned land from a public park; recreational area of national, state, or local significance; wildlife or waterfowl refuge; or historic site of national, state, or local significance. In accordance with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and subsequent guidance, this evaluation will identify and describe the Section 4(0 resources within the Project study area. It will investigate the effects that the Project alternatives will have on these resources. It will investigate avoidance opportunities and well as measures to minimize harm. Finally, the evaluation will present an analysis of its findings, focusing on the decision -making criteria associated with Section 4(0: are there any prudent and feasible alternatives to the use of a Section 4(0 resource and has all planning to minimize harm been conducted. Community Impact Assessment Assumptions Land Use • Wild and scenic rivers or coastal zones will not be impacted. Growth • Existing population data, historic growth trends, and population forecasts will be readily available for the Project area. Farmlands/Agricultural Lands • 5-8 61 • • • • No timberlands will be impacted. The Community Impact Assessment will include a brief discussion of land use types supporting this assumption. Evaluation of Section 4(0 Issues • Preparation of a Section 4(f) Evaluation is not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. An Evaluation of Section 4(f) Issues will be incorporated as an appendix of the Community Impact Assessment. This work will focus on facilitating decision -making regarding the Project alternatives. Should the Preferred Alternative require the use of a Section 4(f) resource, a Section 4(0 Evaluation must be prepared. The determination of the type and scope of any needed Section 4(0 Evaluation will be a component of the work included in the Community Impact Assessment appendix. • Development of the Evaluation of Section 4(f) Issues appendix will require coordination with the Historic Properties Survey Report, the Archaeological Survey Report and the Natural Environment Study. The identification of Section 4(f) resources portion of the appendix will utilize the results of these reports. The impact assessment, avoidance and minimization sections of the appendix will require a collaborative effort, in order to satisfy the respective area's technical requirements. Task 5.2 Relocation Impact Report This task will be performed by Epic Lands, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. A final Relocation Impact Report will be prepared after a final alignment has been determined to discuss relocations specific to the final selected alignment and prior to any appraisal or acquisition activity. The report will be completed in concert with the final ED, so appropriate input can be incorporated into the Final EIS/EIR. 5.2.1 Prepare Draft and Final Relocation Impact Document/Statement The Draft and Final Relocation Impact Document/Statement will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and the "Uniform Act". For the draft statement the tasks will include research and a site visit, but no interviews or surveys of the potential displacees, for each of the reiterations. The final statement will include additional tasks of mailing letters to the displacees and gathering responses. Meetings may need to be held to mitigate some of the issues raised by the responses. Complex relocations, say for dairy farms, mobile home parks, and cemeteries, require careful consideration and may expand considerably the need for in-depth research. The reports will include the number and type of: • Residential Displacements • Multi -Family Displacements • Business/Nonprofit Displacements • Farms/ Agriculture Displacements The report will discuss: 62 5-9 • The potential for last resort housing and the current and anticipated availability of relocation resources • Any relocation problems specific to this project and the alternatives, along with suggested solutions/mitigation solutions to those problems • Potential sequencing or foreseeable relocation difficulties of unusual or difficult displacees These reports will use existing available information in the market including but not limited to professional services, R.E. Brokers, publications, studies, and government resources. Task 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment The FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects provides guidance on how to conduct a visual assessment for federal or federal -aid highway projects. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following: • Definition of the Project setting and viewshed • Identification key views for visual assessment and visual simulations • Analysis of existing visual resources and viewer response • Analysis of visual resources/character to determine attributes such as line, form, color, texture, dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity • Examine attributes such as vividness, intactness, and unity • Creation of visual simulations (before and after the Project) to depict the visual appearance of Project alternatives and the No Build alternative • Qualitative/Quantitative analysis of visual impacts of each Project alternative, as compared to existing conditions and the No Build alternative The Visual Impact Assessment will also discuss whether the Project has the potential to affect an officially designated scenic highway or corridor or an historic resource. Visual Impact Assessment Assumptions • The following items will be developed as part of the PR, engineering Task 3.0 to support preparation of the visual simulations: (1) a three-dimensional model of the alternative Project alignments; (2) plans showing the Project layout; and (3) Project elevation drawings, dimensions of Project features, and grading plans including contours. • It is assumed that no more than two rounds of modifications to the visual simulations will be required in response to comments or design changes. Task 5.4 Cultural Resources This task will be performed by Applied Earthworks, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. • 5-10 63 • • • The following tasks will be completed for the Cultural Resources task: 5.4.1 Resource Identification Agency Coordination Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (7E) will coordinate with CH2M HILL, Caltrans, FHWA, and SHPO throughout the execution of this task. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this Scope of Work complies with the requirements of these Agencies for reporting, staff qualifications, methods, and documentation, while adhering to the proposed schedule. The workplan and reporting detailed in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook (Volume 2) Cultural Resources (Draft January, 2004), as well as updates posted on the Caltrans website will be used to direct the work effort. In addition, work will be conducted in accordance with the January 2004 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -Aid Highway Program in California. Included within this task are up to 5 meetings at the Caltrans District 8 office. Programmatic Agreement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act allows for federal agencies to create a programmatic agreement (PA) on large and/or complex projects. For the purpose of this project, a PA could establish procedures for the implementation of Section 106, including, but not limited to: timelines for Agency review; the phased approach to the identification, evaluation, and Findings of Effect under 36 CFR 800.4 (b)(2); level of effort in the identification and evaluation tasks; documentation levels; and the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). 7E, if so directed, would develop the PA document in consultation with Caltrans, FHWA, and SHPO. APE/Study Area Map Development An Area of Potential Effect (APE) or Study Area will be defined for purposes of identification and evaluation efforts for the State Route 79 Project. A Study Area is used when project engineering is not specific enough and allows for planning flexibility prior to determining the APE. However, an APE map will be required for the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). In consultation with RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA, IE will develop a Study Area/APE map that will define the area that will be considered for identification and evaluation efforts. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation IE will coordinate with Caltrans/FHWA to determine the level of involvement 7E will have in the Native American consultation process. FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American consultation. 7E understands that the federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes. 7E will also consult with interested parties including non -federally recognized Native American groups, and local historical and archaeological societies. This will include initial contact via letter, follow-up phone calls, coordinating and attending up to five meetings with such groups, documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments, as appropriate. 64 5.11 Archival and Historic Research IE will conduct an archaeological and historical records review and literature search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at the University of California, Riverside to determine whether previously recorded cultural resources are known to exist within the property. The objectives of this archival research will be (1) to establish the extent and status of cultural resources previously documented within the project area; and (2) to note what site types might be expected to occur within the project area based on the existing data from known cultural resource sites located within a one -mile radius. In addition, 7E will obtain previous archaeological evaluation reports for sites that have been evaluated. These evaluations may satisfy requirements for additional National Register Eligibility evaluations at some sites. Research for the SR 79 Project will be conducted in order to provide a prehistoric and historic context. This research and context will guide the evaluation of all cultural resources. Research will be conducted in repositories in Riverside County, including the offices of the Riverside County Assessor, Recorder, and Department of Public Works; the University of California, Riverside; California History Room, City of Riverside Public Library; Riverside County Historical Commission; Riverside County Archives Commission; the San Jacinto Valley Museum; and any others as appropriate. Archaeological and Architectural Field Survey of the Study Area 7E will survey the portions of the Study Area that have not been surveyed in the last 10 years. For the areas that have been surveyed, the conditions and quality of the previous work will determine if additional survey is required. This survey will include identification of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as built environment resources (structures, bridges, roads, etc.). It is estimated that as many as 60 miles of Project alternatives may require survey; a 250 ft. APE is assumed for budgeting purposes. IE will coordinate closely with right-of-way and land acquisition specialists to ensure that surveys are conducted only on properties where access is permitted. In previously unsurveyed areas a team of archaeologists will walk a series of parallel transects spaced 10-15 meters across the Study Area until it is covered. The sites will be mapped using sub meter GPS equipment and recorded, using State Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (DPR 523 Series). Only areas where the ground is visible will be surveyed; areas obscured by asphalt or concrete will not be surveyed. For areas that were adequately surveyed in the last 10 years 7E will revisit and update site records as necessary. 7E historians/architectural historians will survey the Study Area by vehicle. 7E will identify the presence of any architectural resources built more than 30 years ago, but less than 45 years ago. In accordance with the 2004 Programmatic Agreement, a Professionally Qualified Staff person (PQS) will determine whether any of these resources may be exempted from evaluation. The level of effort expended on research for the architectural resources that require evaluation will be commensurate with their potential for significance. Since built environment resources are evaluated in this task, all evaluated buildings will be recorded on DPR 523 forms (Primary and Building, Structure, Object Records), except for those that have been so altered as to appear less than 30 years of age, or those that have been moved within the past 50 years. The only properties less than 50 years of age to be recorded will be those that have achieved exceptional significance within the last 50 years. • 5-12 65 • • • Based on previous research in the region, it is estimated that as many as 50 prehistoric or historical archaeological sites will be encountered and require recordation. As many as 100 structures along the alternative alignment segments are estimated to require some level of evaluation; perhaps 50 of those will be assessed as older than 50 years and will require full documentation and evaluation. The majority of the prehistoric sites may be milling slicks with no subsurface component, as well as a few rock art sites, and several milling slicks combined with artifact scatters. Historic archaeological sites are likely to consist primarily of building foundations (houses, barns, and other outbuildings), abandoned irrigation systems, and historic refuse dumps/scatters. The majority of the built environment resources are likely to be residential in nature, constructed in the early to mid -1900s, as well as roads, bridges, culverts, and irrigation features. Many modern residential developments in the Study Area, obviously, will not require recordation or evaluation. Extended Phase I Archaeological Survey It is anticipated that many of the prehistoric archaeological sites will be classified as prehistoric milling slicks. Such sites do not contain any associated surface artifacts and typically indicate that use of the site was not intense and usually cannot be dated; therefore, they do not have much potential for significance. For these milling sites, JE will conduct an Extended Phase I Archaeological Survey. The purpose of the survey will be to determine whether or not a subsurface component of the site is present or absent. If there is a subsurface component, then it may need to be evaluated. If there is no subsurface component of the site, then further evaluation will not be necessary. An Extended Phase I Proposal will be completed and approved by Caltrans/FHWA and SHPO. Shovel test pits (STPs) would be proposed to determine the presence/absence of a subsurface archaeological deposit; a minimum of 4 STPs would be proposed at each site. For purposes of cost estimates, it is anticipated that 15 sites could be evaluated using Extended Phase I. Reports Following the resource identification efforts, JE will prepare the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the Extended Phase I Report, and a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that report the results of the survey efforts. Contents of the reports will be coordinated with Caltrans/ FHWA. These three reports will ultimately be appended to a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the Caltrans/FHWA master compliance document for the identification efforts, NRHP eligibility evaluations (see Evaluation, below), and compliance issues. Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). The ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for prehistoric archaeological resources. The ASR will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory, description of identified prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. The ASR will also contain a bibliography, preparers' qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. Extended Phase I Report. 66 5-13 The Extended Phase I Report will document efforts of the shovel testing conducted at milling sites. This report will contain documentation of the research and field methods, a brief overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory, description of the prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. The Extended Phase I Report will also contain a bibliography, preparers' qualifications, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER will document identification, recordation, and evaluation efforts for the built environment and historical archaeological resources. The HRER will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an historical overview, description and significance of identified historic archaeological and built environment cultural resources, and findings and conclusions. The HRER will also contain a bibliography, preparers' qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and historical archaeological site records. Preparation of one HRER is anticipated; however, the complexity of resources, degree of effect, and phased evaluation of resources along segments of Project alternatives (see Evaluation, below) may require multiple HRERs. 5.4.2 Evaluation Resources Evaluation Planning Upon completion of the resources identification phase, several critical decisions regarding evaluation of cultural resources along the Project alternatives will be required. These decisions must take account of complex scheduling and budgetary issues. Prior to any actual Project permitting and ground disturbance, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act must be completed for all historic properties that may be adversely affected. This is a time-consuming process that may include test excavations, reporting, agency and Native American consultation for archaeological sites, and additional archival research and documentation for historic structures. Furthermore, for archaeological resources and historical structures that are found to be eligible for National Register listing, and that will be affected by the Project, further treatments will be required to mitigate Project effects. Such treatments may include data -recovery excavations for archaeological resources, detailed drawings and photographs for historic structures, or avoidance of effects through demarcation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), where feasible. Clearly, such consideration and treatment of cultural resources along every Project alternative would be costly and time-consuming. As well, many of the methods used for evaluating the NRHP eligibility of archaeological sites are, themselves, destructive of the resources. The costs and resource impacts of evaluating eligibility of resources along every alternative should be minimized. And yet, Project scheduling and the prolonged process of resource evaluation, Section 106 consultation, and mitigation of adverse effects may dictate the scope of the required evaluations and when they are completed. In order to weigh the budgetary, resource, and schedule impacts of subsequent evaluation and treatment of cultural resources, IE would consult with CH2M HILL, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA at the conclusion of the resource identification effort to develop a plan for • • • 5-14 67 • • • further cultural resources studies. That consultation may arrive at a decision to defer evaluation and treatment of cultural resources until a Build alternative has been selected (schedule permitting) or may dictate that resource evaluation must proceed for all or several alternatives. IE has budgeted for meetings with CH2M HILL, RCTC, and Caltrans to evaluate the budgetary and scheduling impacts of options for how and when to evaluate and treat cultural resources discovered during the identification phase. The sections, below, identify the activities that will ultimately be required for resources evaluation. However, until decisions are reached regarding the numbers and types of resources that will require evaluation, and the schedule of those evaluations, costs cannot be estimated accurately. Nonetheless, preliminary cost estimates to initiate the following tasks are provided so that, in the event agency consultation results in decisions to expedite site evaluations immediately following site identification, the activities below can be initiated. Archaeological Evaluation Proposal IE would develop an Archaeological Evaluation Proposal. This report would state the goals of the study and clearly establish the field and laboratory methods that would be used to evaluate the National Register eligibility of archaeological (prehistoric and historical) sites. It would include a research design, background information, and discussion of the regional research issues. Curation plans, permits, time requirements, and personnel would also be addressed. Preliminary cost estimates include a proposal for 10 prehistoric and/or historical archaeological sites. Continuing Agency Coordination IE would provide ongoing coordination with Caltrans, FHWA, SHPO throughout the execution of the Evaluation process. This consultation would focus on ensuring that work completed under this Scope of Work complies with the requirements of these Agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc. Preliminary cost estimates include six months of coordination. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation IE would continue its role to ensure Native American and interested parties consultation for the project continues in compliance with the requirements of Section 106. Preliminary cost estimates include six months of consultation related to evaluation of prehistoric sites. Archaeological Evaluation This task involves completing suitable evaluation excavations to allow characterization of the horizontal and vertical extent of each investigated site, as well as characterization of the site contents and development of a recommendation as to the National Register eligibility of the site. The evaluation would include the use of shovel testing, geomorphological trenching, and test excavation units to assess site contents, extent, age, structure, and integrity. Post -field activities would include artifact cataloguing, sorting, and technical analyses of flaked and ground stone, faunal and floral material, historic artifacts, obsidian, shell, and carbon. The evaluation program would assess significance and integrity, and formulate mitigation recommendations for site treatment. Preliminary costs include an 68 5-15 average per site (prehistoric or historical) estimate for fieldwork, laboratory processing, and artifact analysis at ten sites. Archaeological Evaluation Report IE would develop an Archaeological Evaluation Report (AER). The AER would provide the basis for determining whether sites within the APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. It would also assess the potential for Project effects on the qualities that contribute to a site's NRHP eligibility. The report would document the fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. Preliminary cost estimates include evaluations for 10 sites (prehistoric or historical). Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) Upon completion of site evaluations, 7E would complete an HPSR. The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation and decision making, and serves as compliance documentation for federal undertakings and CEQA. The HPSR documents completion of the identification phase, completion of National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and, as appropriate, a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions. The HPSR would present a summary of findings, document public participation (including Native American consultation), describe properties identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The HPSR would have a location map, project vicinity map, and APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and other graphics. The HPSR will contain the following attachments as appropriate: Archaeological Survey Report, Extended Phase I Survey Report, Historic Resource Evaluation Report, Bridge Evaluation, Test Excavation Report, and letters from any concerned or interested parties. Preliminary cost estimates include preparation of an initial draft of the HPSR to include standing structures addressed in the HRER, the non -eligible sites of the 15 evaluated during Extended Phase I Survey, and 10 sites evaluated in the tasks outlined above. Development of a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for the Studied Resources 7E would work with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for all identified resources. Costs for this task are not included in the current cost estimate. Curation 7E would coordinate the development of a curation agreement for materials collected during the site evaluations. In consultation with Caltrans/FHWA, the closest repository that satisfies the National Park Service guidelines (36 CFR 79) and best meets the Project/agency needs would be identified as the repository. Preparing the collections and transferring them to the identified facility will be most expeditiously addressed on a project -wide basis at the conclusion of site evaluations and any necessary archaeological site treatment, after the number and types of artifacts and documents can be estimated. Nonetheless, it will be important to identify a repository prior to any artifact cataloguing during site evaluations. This would preclude the need to re -label artifacts with the selected repository's • • • 5-16 69 • • • identification numbers. Therefore, a preliminary cost estimate is provided for identifying an appropriate curation facility for the SR79 Project artifacts. Task 5.5 Paleontological Evaluation Report This task will be performed by the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), under subcontract to Applied Earthworks, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. 5.5.1 Literature review/EIR/EIS Paleontology Section A literature/records review will focus on the entire study area of the project, including the proposed right-of-way (ROW) (300 -foot wide corridor). The literature review will include all pertinent paleontologic and geologic literature. The records review will include a check of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPLI), an Argus©-based computerized database and archive of maps housed at the SBCM. The EIS/EIR section for paleontology will be produced by the SBCM, an outline of which will be approved by the lead agency. A preliminary paleontologic sensitivity of the area will be assessed in this document, prior to the field investigation. The document will also include recommendations for further mitigation measures. 5.5.2 Paleontologic Field Assessment The paleontologic sensitivity of the rock units encountered throughout the proposed project area, including all proposed primary and alternative alignments, will be determined in advance of the field survey based upon the results of the literature search and records review. The field reconnaissance for the State Route 79 Realignment Project will then confirm these interpretations, delineating geologic units exposed at the surface along the length of the proposed project corridor and all proposed alternate alignments, while determining if paleontologic resources are present. If resources are present, the significance of the resources will be assessed. Documentation with GPS of any paleontologic resources encountered, including their regional context will be performed. 5.5.3 Assessment Report and Recommendations (Paleontologic Evaluation Report) An assessment report with recommendations for mitigation will be produced, and will include maps and site records. The assessment report will present the results of both a literature and records review and the field survey, including topographic maps with GIS- generated sensitivity overlays. This report will discuss the stratigraphic context, the nature of fossils encountered along the entire study area and the history of fossil remains from the project and from the region. A discussion of the history of known paleontologic resources and their pertinence to the proposed study area will be included. A listing and description of resources investigated, a map of the project area, and a map of indicating where fossil resources and/or paleontologically sensitive areas are located, will also be provided. The recommendations for mitigation will incorporate documentation of the field efforts, a discussion of the significance of resources present within the area of potential effect, and a detailed program for monitoring, treatment and mitigation if sensitive and/or significant resources are encountered. The nature of the resources present and the needs for various 70 5-17 appropriate mitigation procedures, will be documented. Situations where avoidance is more effective than recovery will be documented where appropriate, and the rationale behind these interpretations will be justified as necessary. Requirements for monitoring during the construction phase, the purpose of the monitoring in areas where it is recommended, and procedures conducted during monitoring will be detailed. The topographic map will delineate of paleontologic resources and/or paleontologically sensitive areas present along the proposed project corridor, including all proposed alternative alignments. The proximity of paleontologic resource localities, the proposed corridor, and any proposed access roads to existing structures will also be mapped. All finds will be plotted on United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps; locality data will be described by section and by UTM coordinates. The SBCM has previously generated project report maps conforming to requirements of various Federal, State and county agencies, including Riverside County. The Paleontologic Evaluation Report will be based on an outline that will be pre -approved by the California Department of Transportation. The SBCM has helped develop State and Federal mitigation practices, thereby our outline and reporting procedures are commensurate with State requirements. Task 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report Floodplain information for the Floodplain Evaluation Report is provided by the Location Hydraulic Study (LHS) conducted as part of the Task 3.0 in this scope of services and cost estimate. The LHS will be prepared by a registered engineer, who has hydraulics expertise. If, based on the results of the LHS, it is determined that any one of the following will occur (1) a significant encroachment on a floodplain, (2) an inconsistency with existing watershed and floodplain management programs, or (3) uncertainty exists as to what impacts will occur, then a Floodplain Evaluation Report will be prepared. The Floodplain Evaluation Report will identify applicable procedures and orders relating to hydraulics and describe the existing floodplain with regard to its natural and beneficial values and policies. If an increase in the base floodplain elevation is anticipated, a hydraulic computer model will be used to determine the floodplain encroachment impacts. The Floodplain Evaluation Report will also summarize coordination with federal, state, and local water resources and floodplain management agencies, including the FEMA. In order to comply with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), the Floodplain Evaluation Report will analyze the following: • The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments • Risks of the action • Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values • Support of incompatible floodplain development • 5-18 71 • • • • Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values impacted by the Project (design components to address this issue may be incorporated into the Project description) Executive Order 11988 also requires early public review and comment regarding floodplain risk assessments. Therefore, if encroachments on the base floodplain are determined, they will be included in public notices published for the Project and identified at Public meetings conducted for the Project. Floodplain Evaluation Report Assumptions • The Project is anticipated to involve activities within the limits of the 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, a Floodplain Evaluation Report will be prepared to assess potential Project impacts. Task 5.7 Water Quality Assessment Report Caltrans has a Storm Water Management Program that prevents the adverse effects of storm water runoff from Caltrans roadways and facilities. The Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is the guiding framework for meeting permit requirements for Caltrans storm water discharge. This plan guides storm water control and treatment. To comply with these guidelines a Water Quality Assessment Report will be prepared. The purpose of the Water Quality Assessment Report is to identify the following information in relation to the Project: • Applicable storm water regulations affecting the Project • Receiving water bodies listed in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and their beneficial uses • Existing water quality • Project -related storm water discharges and quality • Potential storm water impacts to the water quality of receiving waters The Water Quality Assessment Report will describe BMPs and implementation procedures in accordance with the Caltrans SWMP and Project Planning and Design Guideline to reduce Project -related storm water quality impacts. The discussion of impacts related to water quality will be qualitative in nature. However, if established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) exist, the analysis will include quantitative analysis as well. Water Quality Assessment Report Assumptions • It is assumed that the analysis for the Water Quality Assessment Report will be based on available data and information. No new water quality monitoring or analysis is included in this scope of services and cost estimate. • It is assumed that a maximum of one quantitative analysis for TMDLs will be performed based on existing information. 72 5-19 Task 5.8 Initial Site Assessment Initial Site Assessment (ISA) task will be performed by Ninyo and Moore, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Ninyo & Moore will perform the following scope of services to complete the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for the six Build alternatives and the No Build alternative. The ISA will be based on the objectives outlined in the Caltrans ISA guidelines modified to reflect the preliminary nature of the design and route selection process. The following specific tasks will be performed to identify possible hazardous waste sites along and near the alternative project alignments that may affect the Project. • Project coordination and attendance at one project initiation meeting, which we have assumed will last no longer than 4 hours. • Review title and/ or lease records, if provided by the client, for the sites and properties located near the alignments to evaluate probable past site uses and their possible impact on the current environmental condition of the sites. Review maps and reports of past assessments and corrective actions, if provided by the client, for the sites and properties located along the alignments. Review readily available historical aerial photographs of the sites and vicinities. Review a computerized database search of readily available government environmental lists for properties located within the minimum search radii prescribed by the ASTM Standard for the respective environmental records resources. • An overview site reconnaissance to visually evaluate areas of possibly contaminated surface soil or surface water, improperly stored hazardous materials, possible sources of PCBs and possible risks of contamination from activities at the sites and at properties adjacent to the Project alignment. • Contact regulatory agency representatives, as may be available, to discuss the current status of site assessments and/ or corrective actions at the sites and properties located adjacent to the sites, which appear on the computerized database search. • Prepare a summary report which will include each alignment alternative (six total build alternatives and the No Build alternative) for inclusion in the PR/EIS/EIR. The summary report will document work scope findings and provide a discussion of findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the current environmental condition of the site along the alignments. • Prepare up to six revisions to the ISA to incorporate review comments and possible changes to the alignments. We assumed that we will attend one Project meeting for each revision and that each meeting will last no longer than 4 hours. • Prepare one re-evaluation of our ISA report to address changes to the proposed alignment alternatives, if necessary. We have assumed that changes to the alignments will be within the ISA study area boundaries. • 5-20 73 • • • Task 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report The air quality analysis and technical report must comply with the federal Clean Air Act and the environmental document must contain a regional and a Project -level air conformity statement, unless the Project is exempt (see 40 CFR 93, 126-128). Project impacts, both long- term and temporary, will be estimated and compared to significance criteria as identified by the local air agency. Project conformity for both regional and local air quality requirements will be addressed in the Air Quality Technical Report and incorporated in the Environmental Document (see Task 6.0 for a discussion of the ED). The Air Quality Technical Report will state the Project's conformance with the current RTP and RTIP, adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Project -level conformity will include the following: • A list of the applicable federal and state standards and attainment status for each criteria pollutant identified in the applicable air quality management plan/air quality assessment guidelines. • A quantitative hot spot analysis for carbon monoxide (CO) and a qualitative hot spot analysis for particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PMlo). The Air Quality Technical Report will discuss the general climatic and meteorological conditions of the Project area (prevailing winds, inland influences, etc.) existing monitored pollutant levels, and address each "nonattainment" or "maintenance" pollutant. Other issues that will be addressed include the following: • Impacts to air quality associated with construct -ion activities, including fugitive dust from excavation and grading, emissions from diesel -fueled construction equipment and emissions associated with paving. • Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) and Structural Asbestos, including a geologic or structural assessment and the identification of measures for dealing with the material. Coordination with the local air district and/or Air Resources Board will be discussed, and any required permits or approvals will be identified. • PM2.5 and 8 -hour ozone, including a discussion of the current standards and the transportation conformity rule amendments for these pollutants. Air Quality Technical Report Assumptions • Traffic information necessary for conducting hot -spots analysis will be provided for Project opening and planning horizon years, including estimates of level of service (LOS), traffic volumes, and signal timing information. • Information related to construction will be available, types of activities, duration, and construction equipment requirements. • Analysis beyond that described above will not be necessary to meet the regional and local conformity requirements. • It is assumed that the design and scope of the Project is described accurately and adequately in the most recent RTP and RTIP, and no amendments will be required. 74 5-21 • Impacts associated with toxic air contaminant emissions, including diesel particulate matter, will be assessed qualitatively. Task 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis This task will be performed by Entech, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Geographics will support the public meetings for this task, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Development of a Noise Technical Analysis Workplan. A noise workplan will be developed that will outline the scope of the analysis, models that will be used, regulatory guidance and methodology used for assessing noise impacts, location of receptors, deliverables that will be presented, etc. The noise workplan will be presented to Caltrans to gain concurrence on the noise study methodology, approach and input data, alternatives, analysis years, review changes in segments grouping for alternatives etc. that will be used to produce the final noise study for the SR 79 Realignment. Deliverables Develop a workplan document outlining the scope of the analysis and methodology. The SR 79 Project noise analysis will follow the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (October1998). The Caltrans protocol applies to the assessment and disclosure of potential impacts of Project alternatives as required by NEPA/CEQA. As part of the SR 79 Project traffic noise impacts will be analyzed. The traffic noise impact analysis will include the following for each of the identified alternatives under consideration. Conduct Onsite Monitoring of Sensitive Receptors: A reconnaissance of the area Project area will be conducted to determine existing land use activities, developed lands, and undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed and programmed, which may be affected by noise from the proposed range of alternatives of the SR 79 Realignment Project. Physical and terrain features that affect noise propagation and features that may be altered during construction will be noted. A listing of sensitive receptors and associated noise measurement sites will be provided in the draft workplan for each Build alternative for review and approval. The selection of sensitive receptors and noise measurement sites will follow the guidance provided in the Caltrans TeNS document. Existing short-term noise level measurements will be conducted at the worst hourly traffic noise hour. Noise measurements will be conducted at identified sites to calibrate the traffic noise model and to ensure complete description of existing noise levels that are representative of the land uses along the proposed alignments. All measurements will be conducted for 15 -minute sampling periods during daytime off-peak hours when traffic is moving freely. At each measurement site, traffic counts will be conducted concurrently with the noise measurements. The sources of noise, topographical features, ground conditions and other features that could affect current or future noise transmission will be described for each receiver. Traffic volumes that are counted during the noise measurement survey will be modeled and the resulting sound levels will be compared with the measured sound levels to reach close agreement. 5-22 75 • • • Predictive Noise Modeling: Noise modeling will be conducted to predict current, future No Build and Build alternatives using the TNM model. Prediction is based on inputs such as projected traffic volume (average daily traffic), traffic mix (percentage of truck traffic), topography and distance of the Project from the receptors. Peak hour noise in the design year for each alternative will be modeled at selected noise sensitive receptors based on forecast traffic volumes. Modeling must be adequate to accurately predict the noise levels at each of the receptors, assess the number of properties within 500 feet of the Project that are impacted or will be impacted and determine the increase in traffic noise. Predicted noise impacts for the future Build alternatives will be compared to the future No Build alternative to determine noise impact. A noise impact occurs when 1) there is a substantial noise increase (when the predicted noise levels with the Project exceed existing noise levels by 12 decibels (dBA) or/and; 2) the future traffic noise level with the Project approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria (NAC). Noise Abatement Evaluation: In accordance with FHWA and Caltrans requirements, noise abatement measures will be considered at locations along the alignments where traffic noise impacts are predicted. If traffic noise impacts are predicted at the sensitive receptors, noise abatement measures must be evaluated at these locations. Preliminary noise abatement design includes considerations such as barrier heights, lengths, and location. Noise abatement is only considered where frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit. A feasible and reasonable analysis will be performed at sensitive receptor locations where a traffic noise impacts was predicted. Noise abatement will be included as part of the Project only if constructing the abatement is reasonable and feasible. Noise abatement will be evaluated at impacted sensitive receptor locations by varying wall heights until a 5-dBA reduction in the future noise level is achieved. Other considerations such as topography, access requirements, other noise sources and safety considerations will be included as part of the feasible review. Those sensitive receptors that are determined to be feasible will undergo a reasonableness review. To determine whether a noise abatement measure is reasonable, a cost -benefit analysis will be conducted taking into account: absolute noise level, Build versus existing noise, environmental impacts of abatement, public and local agencies input, newly constructed development versus development pre- dating 1978 and the total noise abatement allowance versus the Project cost. The preliminary decision of providing noise abatement for exteriors of residential areas in activity Category B is made from the reasonable allowance per benefited residence. Development of Draft and Final Noise Technical Report: After completing the feasible and reasonable test there are two possible outcomes: 1. If traffic noise impacts are predicted and the proposed noise abatement is feasible and reasonable, abatement will be recommended. 2. If the traffic noise impacts are predicted, but the proposed noise abatement is not feasible or reasonable, noise abatement will not be recommended. The analysis will contain a complete discussion of impacted areas that do not meet Caltrans criteria for abatement and specifically note reasons for not including mitigation. After Caltrans review of the feasibility and reasonability tests, comments will be incorporated into the preliminary noise abatement recommendation. The preliminary noise 76 5-23 abatement decision will be incorporated into the Draft EIS/EIR documentation by the development of the draft noise technical report. This environmental documentation will be the means in which the preliminary noise abatement decision will be presented to residents. During the circulation of the Draft EIS/ EIR, presentation of results will be presented to affected residents in community meetings. Property -owner concurrence for the installation of noise barriers will be solicited. If the first outcome prevails, then the final noise abatement decision is the product of public input as well as the preliminary noise abatement decision. Changes to the Preliminary Noise Abatement Recommendation report will be incorporated into the Final Noise Abatement Recommendations report. However, if the traffic noise impacts predicted have a potential to cause a significant adverse environmental impact due to either one or both of the following: 1. a substantial noise increase and/ or; 2. the proposed noise abatement has a potential for a significant effect on a competing resource such as designated scenic highways, scenic vistas, historical sites, endangered species, etc. Mitigation must be considered under CEQA requirements. In addition, it must be further evaluated whether the proposed noise mitigation itself will result in a significant adverse environmental effect before the public involvement process is conducted. If the proposed Project or the proposed noise abatement would result in a significant environmental effect, then an overall mitigation plan must be developed and reported in the Draft Noise Technical Report before incorporating into the Draft EIS/EIR environmental documentation for circulation to solicit public input. Review Cycle and Development of Draft Noise Technical Report: It is anticipated that agency coordination will be required at various checkpoints during the noise analysis before the Draft Technical Noise report would be developed. A Draft Technical Noise report would be developed to articulate the initial Preliminary Noise Abatement Recommendation. This initial Draft Technical Noise report would be circulated to the Project team internally for review and comment. The comments from the Project team would be incorporated and a second version of the Draft Technical Noise report would be developed and circulated to RCTC. RCTC comments would be incorporated, and a third version of the Draft Technical Noise report would be developed and circulated to Caltrans. Caltrans comments would be incorporated and a fourth version of the Draft Technical Noise report would be developed and circulated to FHWA. FHWA comments would be incorporated and a fifth version of the Draft Technical Noise report would be developed. A sixth and final version of the Draft Technical Noise report would be developed and incorporated into the EIS/EIR environmental documentation that would be sent out for public comment. Review Cycle and Development of Final Noise Technical Report: It is assumed that the scope of alternatives would not have changes after public comment. If significant changes have occurred after public inputs have been received such as alignment changes, additional alternatives to be considered, etc., additional scope and budget will need to be developed. Public input is received public comments will be incorporated make a Final Noise Abatement Recommendation in the Final Noise Technical report. A Final Technical Noise report would be developed to articulate the Final Noise Abatement Recommendation. The Final Technical Noise report would be circulated to the Project team internally for review • 5-24 77 • • • and comment. The comments from the Project team would be incorporated and a second version of the Final Technical Noise report would be developed and circulated to RCTC. RCTC comments would be incorporated and a third version of the Final Technical Noise report would be developed and circulated to Caltrans. Caltrans comments would be incorporated, and a fourth version of the Final Technical Noise report would be developed and circulated to FHWA. FHWA comments would be incorporated, and a fifth version of the Final Technical Noise report would be developed. A sixth and final version of the Final Technical Noise report would be developed and incorporated into the EIS/EIR environmental documentation to obtain environmental approvals. Agency Coordination: It is the responsibility of the FHWA and Caltrans through the approval of environmental documents to ensure compliance with the provisions of 23 CFR 772. State Right of Way (ROW) property is not subject to local government ordinances. However, all possible effort will be made to comply with the local ordinances. Input from Caltrans and (FHWA as needed) will be obtained for the workplan development and through the development of the noise analysis. Particular checkpoints for agency coordination would include the following: 1. Defining the selection of sensitive receptors and noise monitoring sites to ensure that enough background monitoring is conducted to cover the range of alternatives being studied as part of the workplan. 2. Defining the cumulative impacts analysis as part of the workplan development. 3. Reviewing noise modeling results of predictive noise impacts for each of the alternatives with segment various to identify whether different segments will be combined or removed from the noise analysis for further review of noise abatement evaluation. 4. Reviewing the noise abatement evaluation results of the Preliminary Abatement Recommendations. 5. Identify substantial increases that would require noise evaluation for CEQA requirements. 6. Reviewing noise evaluation resulting from CEQA review to determine whether a mitigation plan is required. 7. Identifying the initial Preliminary Abatement Recommendations that will be presented in the Draft Noise Technical report that will be incorporated as part of the EIS/EIR environmental documentation for public comment. 8. Reviewing public comment on the Preliminary Abatement Recommendations and incorporating comments to make a Final Noise Abatement Recommendations report that will be incorporated into the Final Noise Technical Report. Additional changes to Alignment. If additional changes occur to the Project description, additional modeling, mitigation analysis, reporting and agency coordination, and possible noise monitoring would be required. Public Meetings: During the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, presentation of the Preliminary Noise Abatement Recommendations will be presented to affected residents in 78 5-25 community meetings. Property -owner concurrence for the installation of noise barriers will be solicited. Coordination with the public outreach consultant and Caltrans will be obtained for seeking homeowner concurrence. It is assumed that a public involvement workplan will be developed to identify the process in which homeowners will be invited to attend community meetings, the level of effort required by Caltrans to ensure that an adequate opportunity is provided to homeowners to become aware of the Preliminary Noise Abatement Recommendations, identify the content of the letters that will be soliciting homeowner concurrence, the type of exhibits and literature that will be developed to present the findings, the length of time that will be given to homeowners to respond to letters received, etc. It is assumed that six public meetings will be required to present the Preliminary Noise Abatement Recommendations. The Final Technical Noise report will present the Final Noise Abatement Recommendations. It is assumed that no additional public meetings will be required after the initial circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR. Task 5.11 Natural Environment Study The Natural Environment Study (NES) will address the following six resource areas: • Natural communities • Wetlands and other waters of the United States • Plant species • Animal species • Threatened and endangered species • Invasive species Information obtained for preparation of the Wetland Delineation report and Biological Survey reports as part of Task 5.13, will be used to support the analysis of biological resources m the NES. Biological resources surveys previously conducted in 2000/2001 will also be used to support preparation of the NES. Previous activities conducted in support of the 2000/2001 surveys resulted in the compilation of a list of special -status species potentially occurring in the Project study area. This species list received USFWS preliminary review and input. As part of this task, written USFWS documentation will be obtained for a determination of the following: species not present, not likely to be affected, or non -jeopardy biological opinion. Natural Communities The Natural Communities section of the Natural Environment Study will discuss natural communities of concern within the Project area. The section will focus on biological communities (such as grasslands, riparian forest, etc.) and not individual plant or animal species. The section will also discuss as appropriate, habitat fragmentation, wildlife migration routes and corridors, and/or fish passage. The conservation goals of the western Riverside MSHCP will be discussed, as well as the Project's compliance with this plan, specific to each Project Build alternative. • 5-26 79 • • • Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal level, the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), administered by USACE is the primary law regulating wetlands and waters. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) also regulates the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this executive order states that a federal agency cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: 1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and 2) the proposed Project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm. At the state level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by CDFG under Section 1600 of the COFG Code and by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA (delegated by EPA). The Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. section of the NES will be based upon a separate, stand-alone technical report, the Wetland Delineation Report, discussed in Subtask 5.12.1 of this scope of services and cost estimate. Key tasks that will be conducted to analyze the data provided by the Wetland Delineation Report in the Wetlands and Other Waters section of the NES will include the following: • Potential impacts will be described qualitatively/quantitatively by drainage location and impact type (permanent, temporary, direct, indirect) in terms of the quality and functions of the affected waters and wetlands and associated impacts. USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB jurisdictions will be identified. • Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures will be identified to reduce impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States. If a given minimization measure is not practicable, a justification based on cost, performance, socioeconomic impacts, or other factors will be provided. • The Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States section of the NES will include a discussion of the alternatives considered and withdrawn. • Coordination and preconsultation will occur with USFWS, USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB to evaluate options for impact minimization and Project mitigation, as appropriate, and identify waters and wetlands permits anticipated to be needed for the Project Build alternatives. Plant Species The Plant Species section of the NES will discuss special -status plant species that are not formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Environmental Species Act (CESA). Special -status plants that will be addressed include CDFG fully protected species and species of special concern; USFWS candidate species; and non -listed California Native Plant 80 5-27 Society (CNPS) rare and endangered plants; as well as those covered by the western Riverside County MSHCP. Common plant species that will be addressed include native and non-native species, including landscaped areas. The Plant Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys previously conducted in 2000/2001 and biological resources surveys that will be conducted as part of Task 5.12 in this scope of services and cost estimate. Animal Species The Animal Species section of the NES will discuss special -status wildlife species that are not formally listed or proposed for listing under FESA and/or CESA. Wildlife species that will be addressed include CDFG fully protected species and USFWS candidate species, those covered by the western Riverside County MSHCP, as well as common wildlife species considered to be endemic to the Project region or of particular biological interest. The Animal Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys previously conducted in 2000/2001 and on biological resources surveys that will be conducted as part of Task 5.12 in this scope of services and cost estimate. Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened or endangered species are plants and animals that are formally listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA and/or CESA. The Threatened and Endangered Species section of the NES will assess proposed or listed species and their critical habitat within the Project area. The Threatened and Endangered Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys previously conducted in 2000/2001 and on biological resources surveys that will be conducted as part of Task 5.12 in this scope of services and cost estimate. Coordination and preconsultation will occur with USFWS and CDFG to evaluate options for endangered species impact minimization and Project mitigation, as appropriate. Invasive Species On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as "any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Federal Highway Administration guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the state's noxious weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of the NEPA analysis for the Project. The Invasive Species section of the NES will identify existing invasive plant and wildlife species within the Project area and discuss the potential of the Project to promote or inhibit the spread of invasive species. The Project's compliance with FHWA and Caltrans guidance regarding landscape species used for ROW revegetation will also be addressed. Measures that can be implemented to combat invasive species will also be identified. • 5-28 81 • • • The Invasive Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys that will be conducted as part of Task 5.12 in this scope of services and cost estimate. Assumptions • Permit acquisition or agency coordination in support of permit acquisition is anticipated to occur after a Preferred Alternative is identified and is not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. • Preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) and associated formal consultation with the Resource Agencies is not required for the Project due to the coverage afforded under the western Riverside County MSHCP and is therefore not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. • Rental of a GPS unit and a four wheel -drive vehicle is anticipated for each site visit. • Because the resources covered by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act include park and recreation lands and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, the NES may develop information important to the Community Impact Assessment. Consequently, it will require coordination between the respective task teams. Any data regarding these types of resources should be disseminated throughout the Project team. Additionally, it may be necessary to coordinate with the Section 4(0 resource's administering agency. The Caltrans Project Manager will establish the protocols for any agency coordination. In accordance with Caltrans and FHWA guidance, if the Section 4(0 Evaluation conducted as part of the Community Impacts Assessment identifies potential impacts to an historic site of national, state, or local significance, it will be included as an appendix to the NES. Task 5.12 Biological Survey Reports A number of independent technical reports will be prepared to document the methodology and results of biological surveys conducted in association with the Project. Biological surveys are anticipated to be required for the following resources: • Wetlands and waters of the United States • Burrowing owl • Rare plants • Riparian birds • Vernal pool fairy shrimp • Mammals Subtask 5.12.1 Wetland Delineation Report A Project -level delineation of waters of the United States including wetlands will be required throughout the Project area for Project impact analysis in the ED and permitting. Waters of the U.S. include major water courses, minor drainage channels, and adjacent wetlands, including vernal pools and playas. Within the Project area, a planning -level delineation of City of Hemet lands previously has been completed by the City consultant PCR Environmental Inc., and planning -level delineation of vernal pools and playa, the San 82 5-29 Jacinto River, Salt Creek Channel, and other jurisdictional areas previously has been completed by CH2M HILL. However, completion of a planning -level delineation within the Project area outside of the City of Hemet, which for the purposes of the estimate is characterized as the footprint of existing alternative routes, with a 1,000 -foot buffer extended out on each proposed alignment segment, is required. The planning -level delineation will include the following: 1. Acquire, review, and verify delineation conducted by the City of Hemet on City lands. 2. Integration of existing planning -level delineation data acquired by CH2M HILL for vernal pools and playa and major river and creek channels. 3. Acquire new planning -level delineation data on otherwise unmapped channels and adjacent wetlands under jurisdiction of the USACE. The latter task will include centerline delineation of drainages with GPS units and/or air photo delineation with ground truthing, estimates of dimensions of USACE jurisdiction, and general characterization of drainages. Data will be downloaded into the Project GIS, verified for consistency with air photo or other GIS data, and mapped in a series for appropriate display. Deliverable • The results of the planning -level delineation will be provided in a Wetland Delineation Report, for submittal to USACE for review. • USACE verification of the jurisdictional determination will be obtained. Assumptions • The wetland and waters of the United States delineation will occur during the 2005 wet season. • The City of Hemet will provide the completed mapping with their jurisdiction in a GIS file, no rectification or file conversion will be required. • GPS unit and four-wheel drive vehicle will be required. Subtask 5.12.2 Burrowing Owl Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report The MSHCP requires surveys for the burrowing owl within a mapped area shown on Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. Suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, within the mapped area and the Project study area will be identified. Advanced field surveys will be restricted to areas with landowner access. The habitat evaluation effort will provide an equal evaluation for each Project alternative, however, the advance field survey effort may not be sufficient for the MSHCP survey requirements, as 100 percent coverage of suitable habitat within the Project study area will not be completed. After a Preferred Alternative is selected for the Project, consultation with the Resource Conservation Authority (RCA) will occur to determine the additional level of effort, if required, for a focused survey effort for the burrowing owl. • 5-30 83 • • • Deliverable The results of the burrowing owl surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • A focused protocol survey will be completed of the Preferred Alternative, when selected. This effort is addressed in Task 7, Future Tasks Not Currently Scoped. • GPS unit and 4WD vehicle will be required. Subtask 5.12.3 Rare Plant Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report This task will be completed by CH2M HILL, with the assistance of staff from UC Riverside and local botanical experts under subcontract with CH2M HILL. The MSHCP requires surveys for rare plants within a mapped area shown on Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of the MSHCP. Suitable habitat for these plant species, within the mapped area and the Project study area will be identified. Advanced field surveys will be restricted to areas with landowner access. The habitat evaluation effort will provide an equal evaluation for each Project alternative, however, the advance field survey effort may not be sufficient for the MSHCP survey requirements, as 100 percent coverage of the suitable habitat within the Project study area will not be completed. After a Preferred Alternative is selected for the Project, consultation with the RCA will occur to determine the additional level of effort, if required, for a focused survey effort for rare plants. Deliverable The results of the rare plant surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • A focused protocol survey will be completed of the Preferred Alternative, when selected. This effort is addressed in Task 7, Future Tasks Not Currently Scoped. • GPS unit and four-wheel drive vehicle will be required. Subtask 5.12.4 Riparian Bird Focused Survey Report The MSHCP requires surveys for riparian birds in suitable habitat for the least Bell's vireo (LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher, and the California yellow -billed cuckoo. A survey map for these habitats is not included in the MSHCP. A reconnaissance -level evaluation will be required prior to completing focused survey work for the Project. Least Bell's vireo: Directed surveys for the least Bell's vireo would be conducted to evaluate potentially suitable nesting habitat (if present), and to determine whether breeding birds are present. Survey methods would follow USFWS survey protocol for these species. Specifically, potential vireo habitat would be surveyed eight times conducted at least 10 days apart during the survey period between April 10 and July 31. The surveys would be conducted between dawn and 11:00 a.m. during appropriate weather conditions. Least Bell's vireos would be detected (if present) by standard visual or auditory means. Information 84 5-31 pertaining to sex, age, reproductive status, and habitat would be recorded to the extent possible (if applicable). If nesting were believed to be occurring, the field observer would try to ascertain the general location of the nest, but would not approach or disturb the nest. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWF): Surveys for the SWF would be conducted simultaneously (where applicable) with those of the LBV. In areas of riparian habitat that may not be suitable for the vireo, but considered suitable for SWF, surveys employing "pishing" and other accepted techniques would be conducted to determine the presence or absence of this taxon. Surveys would be conducted by walking enough transects through potential habitat to ensure total coverage of suitable habitat types. Information on the numbers observed, habitat characteristics, and nest locations (if observed) would be recorded. Survey schedule for SWF would be as follows. Survey Period 1: May 15 to May 31; Survey Period 2 (at least one survey): June 1 to June 21 (at least one survey); Survey Period 3: June 22 to July 17 (at least three surveys). These surveys would be conducted at least 5 days apart. Five surveys are included in this scope of work. Deliverable The results of the riparian bird surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • Surveys for the California yellow -billed cuckoo are anticipated to not be required because of lack of suitable habitat, or can be conducted during the survey protocol for LBV or SWF. • GPS unit and four-wheel drive vehicle will be required. • Travel expenses (including air and hotel costs) will be required. Subtask 5.12.5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Focused Survey Report Surveys for vernal pool and Riverside fairy shrimp are planned for the wet season of 2005. These surveys will be conducted to assist to complete a single year of protocol level surveys for branchiopod species. If sufficient precipitation does not occur, then the budget for this task will be used to support a dry season survey effort. However, a dry season survey effort is more time intensive and may require additional budget. Deliverable The results of the fairy shrimp surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • Six focused survey site visits (3 people for 3 days each) collecting samples. • Four site visits to track precipitation will be required. • GPS unit and four-wheel drive vehicle will be required. • Travel expenses (including air and hotel costs) will be required. • • • 5-32 85 • • • Subtask 5.12.6 Mammal Focused Survey Report This task will be completed by O'Farrell Consulting, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Figure 6-5 of the MSHCP indicates areas that are to be surveyed for mammals (Los Angeles pocket mouse [LAPM] and San Bernardino kangaroo rat [SBKR]) in the northern portion of the Project study area. A site reconnaissance survey of the Project study area and focused trapping effort within the MSHCP designated survey area will be completed for the Project. This evaluation will also assist to address wildlife connectivity within the Project study area. A trapping program designed to determine the presence/absence of LAPM and SBKR would be conducted. Trapping would include up to 5 nights of trapping in each area where trapping is required, depending upon the results obtained each night. A trapping area is defined as separate if, by nature of the topography or the distance between areas exhibiting diagnostic sign, or by nature of the lack of security of the traplines (due to human encroachment), additional traplines cannot be managed by 1 person during 1 night of trapping. Small mammal trapping would be preceded by at least 5 days of dry weather. Deliverable The results of the mammal surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • Trapping will only occur in the area adjacent to the San Jacinto River identified in Figure 6-5 of the MSHCP. • GPS unit and four-wheel drive vehicle will be required. Task 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis The Project is required to evaluate the impacts to the criteria area of the MSHCP. This analysis is only required for the Preferred Alternative and will be described within a document referred to as an Equivalency Analysis. The MSHCP Equivalency Analysis will address the following: • Effects on habitats • Effects on Planning Species proposed for Non-contiguous Habitat Blocks 6 and 7 and Existing Constrained Linkage B • Effects on Core Areas (as identified on the MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Map, Figure 3-2) • Effects on Linkages and Constrained Linkages (as identified on the MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Map) • Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management (such as increases and decreases in edge) 86 5-33 The RCA has yet to provide format guidance for the Equivalency Analysis and specifically, consideration of the effects discussed above. The level of effort included in this scope of work and cost estimate for this task is intended to begin the required analysis and identify specific activities that need to be conducted in the future to fully address equivalency under the MSHCP. Deliverable • The Equivalency Analysis will be initiated through the identification of specific activities that are required to fully comply with the MSHCP. It is expected that an Equivalency Analysis document will be produced when the requirements for this document are determined by the RCA. It is planned to be submitted to the RCA after the Preferred Alternative is selected for the Project. • 5-34 87 Task 6.0 Environmental Document Task 6.0 replaces Task 4.0 in the previous contract. Task 6.1 Technical Section Updates Prior to beginning preparation of the Draft ED, the technical analyses conducted as part of Task 3 and presented in the Environmental Technical Reports will be reviewed and revised as necessary based on the updated Project Alternatives description developed as part of Task 4.2. Assumptions • No separate deliverables will be developed or produced as part of this task. Task 6.2 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR The ED will be prepared as a joint ED in compliance with NEPA regulations and the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Caltrans and FHWA procedures. Based on the scope and complexity of the Project, it is assumed that an EIS/ EIR, meeting state and federal requirements, will be necessary for Project approval. Caltrans-accepted format for a joint environmental document will be used for preparation of the EIS/EIR. Caltrans will serve as the state lead agency under CEQA, while FHWA will serve as federal lead agency under NEPA. CH2M HILL will prepare a joint EIS/EIR that identifies, evaluates, and analyzes potential environmental impacts of the Build alternatives proposed to undertake the Project, in addition to the No Build alternative. To avoid unnecessary additional or duplicative effort in preparation of the EIS/EIR, to the extent appropriate, EIS/EIR content will be based on the Environmental Technical Reports prepared as part of Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate. EIS/EIR content and focus will also be based on input received during the public scoping phase of the Project (see Subtask 6.5.1 of this scope of services and cost estimate). Task 6.2.1 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Preparation An administrative draft EIS/EIR will be prepared for RCTC review and comment. The administrative draft EIS/EIR will include the chapters and content discussed below. • Summary. This section of the EIS/EIR will provide a summary of the Project Build alternatives and associated environmental impacts. The summary will identify the list of permit approvals, and cooperating agencies and responsible agencies associated with the Project. • Purpose of and Need For Project. This section of the EIS/EIR will be based on the information developed as part of the Final Purpose and Need document (CH2M HILL, December 18, 2003), which received concurrence from USACE and EPA. Changes to the H RCTCi171146\MANAGEMENT\SCOPE AND COST ESTIMATES 12004 RESCOPINGRESCOPINGSCOPE2004-12-16 SCOPE WITH CHANGES ACCEPTED.DO( 1E,HER9NPRGJECTSiRCTS.4f1-14&MANAG tTSCOPEAND-CO 4_ES.TIMATES\2.004RES"OPWG\R€S6{;P}N E;SGOPE'2i'041-2-16SGOP€ I19TH CHANGES ACCEP^TED.DOt^.-i :+*c 4: u 5 ?I.N., r-=�s.4 ; :,e %r N —D i:vST SSW,' . i + u!i ..1-3 _ x ttx-` ">.`i6ii >�: _a '. 4 4 r 6-1 88 Project Purpose and Need as described in this document are not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. The Project background with respect to Project history, related projects, and funding and programming information will also be provided in this section. • Project Alternatives Description. This section of the EIS/EIR will be based on information developed during preparation of the Project Alternatives Description (see Task 4.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate). The EIS/EIR will provide an equally detailed description of the Project Build alternatives and No Build alternative. The discussion of Build alternatives will identify common and unique design features between alternatives, and address the Locally Preferred Alternative. The Project Alternatives section will address alternatives considered and withdrawn from further analysis. The intended uses of the ED and authorizing actions will also be identified. The framework for this section of the EIS/EIR will be provided from the Project Alternatives description in the Environmental Technical Reports. Additional detail will be added into the Project Alternatives description after the Environmental Technical Reports are completed. • Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. This section of the EIS/EIR will be based upon the technical analysis conducted for the Environmental Technical Reports outlined in Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate. The EIS/EIR will provide a description of existing conditions and the regional/local environmental setting, defined as the date the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) were published/posted. This section will provide an equally detailed evaluation of operation and construction impacts for each of the primary Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternative. Steps taken to avoid or minimize impacts will be identified in this section, along with appropriate recommendations for the implementation of specific mitigation measures to reduce the severity of impacts, if required. This section of the EIS/EIR will address the following main environmental topics: Human Environment Land Use (including parks and recreation) — Growth Farmlands/Agricultural Lands Community Impacts (including community character and cohesion, relocations, and environmental justice) — Economics Utilities/Services Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities — Visual/ Aesthetics — Cultural Resources Physical Environment — Paleontological Resources — Hydrology and Floodplains — Water Quality and Storm Water Run -Off • 6-2 89 • • • - Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography/Mineral Resources - Hazardous Waste/Materials - Air Quality — Noise - Energy Biological Environment — Natural Communities — Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States - Plant Species - Animal Species - Threatened and Endangered Species - Invasive Species • Cumulative Impacts. The Cumulative Impacts section of the EIS/EIR will identify potential cumulative effects of the Project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. The effort for this task will be conducted under Subtask 6.2.2, discussed below. • California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation. The evaluation of significant impacts under CEQA will be addressed as a separate section of the EIS/EIR, independent from the analysis of impacts under NEPA, as required by Caltrans. This section will identify impacts associated with the Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternative and determine the significance of these impacts based primarily on the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and on other applicable Caltrans, FHWA, and local agency standards, if available. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts will be identified. • Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Develop Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for properties affected by the Project alternatives. This will include the information attached to the Community Impact Assessment, NES, and Cultural Resources technical reports. Assumptions The Section 4(0 Evaluation will be included as an appendix to the Final EIS/EIR. The ED will also include other NEPA- and CEQA-mandated sections for an EIS/EIR, including the following: • Table of Contents • The Relationship Between Local Short -term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity • Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources • Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Summary of Public/Agency Involvement Process/Tribal Coordination • List of Preparers 90 6-3 • References • Index Appendices to the Draft EIS/EIR will include material such as the NOI and NOP and responses/feedback received from the public scoping process. As previously indicated in Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate, the Environmental Technical Reports will not be included as technical appendices to the Draft EIS/ EIR. Deliverables • Administrative Draft EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC Assumptions • The cost of each individual EIS/ EIR document is estimated to be $500. • Study methods, approaches, and results presented in the Environmental Technical Reports prepared as part of Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate, will not require modification or reassessment prior to incorporation of technical report material into the Draft EIS/EIR. • Should additional Environmental Technical Reports be required to support preparation of the EIS/EIR, it will be deemed outside of this scope of services and cost estimate. • The Purpose of and Need for the Project will not vary from that defined in the Final Purpose and Need document (CH2M HILL, December 18, 2003) prepared for RCTC; reviewed by Caltrans, FHWA, and the PDT; and preliminarily approved by USACE and EPA. No additional changes will be required for USFWS approval. • The Project alternatives description will not require major revisions from the description developed as part of Task 4.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate. • It has been determined that a stand-alone technical report is not required to address potential energy consumption associated with the Project. As a result, this section will be developed solely for inclusion in the EIS/EIR and will describe existing energy consumption and anticipated energy use in association with the Project Build alternatives, including vehicles and equipment during construction and vehicles, maintenance, and street lighting during operation. Task 6.2.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts The cumulative analysis will be based upon the individual resource analysis of cumulative impacts conducted as part of the Environmental Technical Reports (see Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate) with consideration of a specific set of cumulative projects, identified in consultation with the County of Riverside and Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Deliverables • The cumulative impacts analysis will be presented as a chapter of the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. No separate deliverables will be developed or produced as part of this task. • • • 6-4 91 • • • Assumptions • City of Hemet and San Jacinto and County of Riverside cumulative projects to be included in the cumulative impacts discussion will be identified through coordination with these entities. Cumulative projects will be reviewed and approved by RCTC prior to conducting the cumulative analysis. • It is assumed that the analysis of County of Riverside cumulative projects under CEQA will be handled using their newly updated general plan. Additional analysis of potential cumulative effects under CEQA associated with these projects in the Project EIS/EIR is not required. Task 6.3 Draft EISIEIR Preparation A Draft EIS/EIR will be prepared based upon comments received on the administrative Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR will be distributed to RCTC, Caltrans, DEA/Legal, FHWA, and the agencies for review in anticipation of public circulation under Task 6.4. Deliverables After each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the EIS/EIR text to respond to review comments prior to distributing the subsequent draft. The deliverables for the Draft EIS/ EIR are identified below: • Draft EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 2 EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans and DEA/Legal • Revised Draft 3 EIS/EIR for submittal to FHWA and agencies • Revised Draft 4 EIS/EIR for submittal to FHWA and agencies Assumptions • Substantial revisions to the Draft EIS/EIR requiring significant new research or analysis in response to comments received on the administrative Draft EIS/EIR are not anticipated. • The cost of each individual EIS/EIR document is estimated to be $500. Task 6.4 Draft EIS/EIR Circulation After all the agency comments have been incorporated and verified by Caltrans and FHWA, the public Draft EIS/EIR title sheet will be submitted for signature approval and reproduction. CH2M HILL will assist RCTC with the compilation of a distribution list for circulation of the Draft EIS/ EIR. Circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR will include appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials representing jurisdictions within the Project area; local residential and business representatives; appropriate civic groups; local libraries; the Project mailing list; and other interested members of the public. CH2M HILL will be responsible for distribution of the EIS/EIR to those on the approved list. 92 6-5 Up to 200 copies of the document and 100 CDs will be provided for distribution. CDs will be provided for general distribution, electronic upload to the Project website, and to Riverside Blueprint for efficient and cost effective reproduction of hard copies at the public's request. Deliverables • Distribution list for Draft EIS/EIR circulation • Draft EIS/ EIR for public distribution • Electronic copies of Draft EIS/EIR on CD Assumptions • Up to 200 hard copies and 100 CDs of the Draft EIS/EIR will be provided for distribution. • The cost of each individual EIS/EIR document is estimated to be $500. • The Draft EIS/EIR distribution list will contain up to 200 entries. • The Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse will be provided with multiple copies of the Draft EIS/EIR for distribution to state agencies. • All documents will be delivered by FedEx or United Parcel Service (UPS), overnight delivery. Task 6.5 Public Involvement Subtask 6.5.1 Scoping Input regarding potential environmental impacts, the significance of the impacts, the scope of the environmental analysis, and the range of Project alternatives will be solicited during the public scoping process. Geographics, a firm under subcontract to CH2M HILL, will lead the scoping effort with support from CH2M HILL. Public scoping will generally include the following tasks: • Arrange and conduct scoping meetings • Develop scoping meeting materials, including meeting displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, a PowerPoint presentation and displays • Develop and distribute scoping meeting notices and invitations • Develop stakeholder newsletter • Publish newspaper notices • Prepare Scoping Summary report Scoping Meetings CH2M HILL will provide support to RCTC and Geographics for the public scoping meetings conducted in association with the Project. Support will include up to four engineering/environmental consulting staff to attend the scoping meetings to staff the • • • 6-6 93 • • • displays, lead small group discussions, answer questions, and otherwise assist Geographics with conducting the meetings. Up to two (2) scoping meetings are anticipated to be held in the general Project area. Scoping meetings were conducted in the fall of 2004. Deliverables • CH2M HILL attendance and support for up to two scoping meetings • Geographics will provide the following in support of the scoping meetings: - Meeting locations for up to two scoping meetings - Newspaper announcements for the scoping meetings - Direct -mail scoping meeting invitations to stakeholders - Scoping meeting flyers for distribution in public locations (converted from newspaper announcements) - Stakeholder Newsletter for use at scoping meetings - Publish Stakeholder Newsletter in full page ad in zoned coverage of the relevant area in the Press Enterprise Newspaper - Scoping meeting materials, including displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, and PowerPoint presentation Assumptions • Up to two scoping meetings are assumed to be held for the Project. • Geographics will be responsible for preparation of meeting displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, handouts, and any presentations required for the scoping meetings. • Geographics will handle arrangements for meeting facilities and newspaper notices. Scoping Summary Report Geographics will prepare a Scoping Summary Report at the conclusion of the formal scoping process. The purpose of the report is to inform the public of the decisions made as a result of the scoping process, and to capture public and agency input regarding existing conditions, Project alternatives, and the potential Project impacts. The report will summarize the public scoping proceedings based on the feedback recorded during the scoping meetings and comment cards received. Deliverables The deliverables for the Scoping Summary Report are identified below. After each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the report text to respond to review comments prior to distributing the subsequent draft. • Administrative Draft Scoping Summary Report for submittal to RCTC • Draft Scoping Summary Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 Scoping Summary Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 2 Scoping Summary Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final Scoping Summary Report 94 6-7 Assumptions • No new field data will be generated for preparation of the Scoping Summary Report. • Up to 50 copies of the Final Scoping Summary Report will be prepared. • The Final Scoping Summary Report will be included as an appendix to the Draft EIS/ EIR. Subtask 6.5.2 Public Information Meeting A public information meeting will be conducted after the final agreement to purpose and need, criteria, and alternatives selection will be completed for the Project. This meeting will update the public on the status of the Project and how their input during scoping and the results of the technical studies assisted in the development of the alternatives to be included in the environmental document. Geographics, a firm under subcontract to CH2M HILL, will lead the Public Informational effort with support from CH2M HILL. A public information meeting will generally include the following tasks: • Arrange and conduct one public information meeting • Develop public information meeting materials, including meeting displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, a PowerPoint presentation, and displays • Develop and distribute public information meeting notices and invitations • Develop stakeholder newsletter • Publish newspaper notices • Prepare Public Information Summary Report • CH2M HILL attendance and support for up to one public information meetings • Geographics will provide the following in support of the public information meetings: - Meeting locations for up to one public informational meetings Newspaper announcements for the public informational meetings Direct -mail Public Informational meeting invitations to stakeholders Public information meeting flyers for distribution in public locations (converted from newspaper announcements) - Stakeholder Newsletter for use at public information meetings Publish Stakeholder Newsletter in full -page ad in zoned coverage of the relevant area in the Press Enterprise Newspaper Public information meeting materials, including displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, and PowerPoint presentation • • • 6-8 95 • • • Deliverables The deliverables for the Public Informational Summary Report are identified below. After each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the report text to respond to review comments prior to distributing the subsequent draft. • Administrative Draft Public Informational Summary Report for submittal to RCTC • Draft Public Informational Summary Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 Public Informational Summary Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 2 Public Informational Summary Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final Public Informational Summary Report Assumptions • No new field data will be generated for preparation of the Public Informational Summary Report. • Up to 50 copies of the Final Public Informational Summary Report will be prepared. • The Final Public Informational Summary Report will be included as an appendix to the Draft EIS/ EIR. Subtask 6.5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing CH2M HILL will prepare and provide the NEPA NOA to FHWA for publication in the Federal Register and prepare and file the CEQA Notice of Completion (NOC) with the Office of Planning and Research. These notices publish the fact that the Draft EIS/EIR is completed and available for public distribution, and identify the specific time period for delivering comments to the Lead Agencies and the dates of any public hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR. The notices will also be sent to all parties that request a copy during the environmental review process, published in a local newspaper in the Project area, and posted on the Project website. Deliverables • Administrative Draft NOA and NOC for submittal to RCTC • Draft NOA and NOC for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Draft 1 NOA and NOC for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA • Final NOA and NOC Subtask 6.5.4 Public Hearings CH2M HILL will provide support to RCTC and Geographics for the public hearings conducted in association with the Draft EIS/EIR. Support will include up to five engineering/environmental consulting staff to attend the public hearings and provide displays or handouts, answer questions, and otherwise assist Geographics with conducting 96 6-9 the hearings. Up to three public hearings are anticipated to be held for the Project. One will be held in the City of Hemet, while the others will occur at the RCTC meetings. Geographics will prepare a Public Hearing Report summarizing the public hearing proceedings based on the hearing transcripts and comment cards received. The purpose of the report is to capture public and agency input regarding the Project. Deliverables • CH2M HILL attendance and support for up to three public hearings • Geographics will provide the following in support of the public hearings: Meeting locations for up to three public hearings Newspaper announcements for the public hearings Direct -mail public hearing invitations to stakeholders Public hearing flyers for distribution in public locations (converted from newspaper announcements) Stakeholder Newsletter for use at public hearings Publish Stakeholder Newsletter in full -page ad in the zoned coverage of the relevant area of the Press Enterprise Newspaper Public hearing materials, including displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, and PowerPoint presentation The deliverables for the Public Hearing Report are identified below. After each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the report text to respond to review comments prior to distributing the subsequent draft. • Administrative Draft Public Hearing Report for submittal to RCTC • Revised Draft Public Hearing Report for incorporation in the Administrative and Revised Final EIS/EIR for additional agency review (Caltrans, DEA/Legal, FHWA) • Final Public Hearing Report for attachment to the Final EIS/EIR circulated to the public Assumptions • Up to three public hearings are assumed to be held for the Project. It is assumed that up to two hearings will be held as part of regular RCTC hearings and up to one additional hearing will be held in the City of Hemet. • Geographics will be responsible for preparation of meeting displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, handouts, and any presentations required for the public hearings. • Geographics will arrange for a court reporter, transcription, meeting facilities, and newspaper notices. • No new field data will be generated for preparation of the Public Hearing Report. • Up to 15 copies of the Draft Public Hearing Report will be produced for RCTC review. • The Revised Draft Public Hearing Report will be submitted for review by Caltrans, DEA/Legal and FHWA as an appendix to the Final EIS/EIR. • 6-10 97 • • • • The Final Public Hearing Report will be distributed to the public as an appendix to the Final EIS/EIR. Task 6.6 Final EIS/EIR Subtask 6.6.1 Response to Comments Upon close of the public review period on the Draft ED, CH2M HILL will organize comments on the Draft EIS/EIR submitted to the Project website; submitted in writing; or presented at the public hearings. CH2M HILL will confer with Caltrans and FHWA to review written comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and comments from the public hearing to develop a general framework and strategies for preparation of responses. Written responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR will be prepared and submitted for review. The comments will be cross-referenced to applicable sections of the Draft EIS/EIR. Responses that are included in this scope of services and cost estimate consist of explanations, elaborations, or clarifications of the data contained in the Draft EIS/EIR; substantial new analysis is not included. The administrative Final EIS/EIR will be prepared based upon the response to comments reviewed and approved by the agencies. The Final EIS/EIR will be composed of public comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and responses to those comments, as well as modifications to the Draft EIS/EIR text that are necessary to respond fully to comments received on the Draft ED, and the Project, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan (see Task 6.8 in this scope of services and cost estimate). Deliverables • Administrative Draft Response to Comments for submittal to RCTC • Final Response to Comments for inclusion in Final EIS/EIR Assumptions • For estimating purposes, up to 200 comment letters with 500 total written comments are anticipated and 200 verbal comments from the public hearings are assumed to be received during the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIR. Of this total, approximately 150 comments will require significant evaluation to develop responses to comments raising significant environmental issues. • If substantial new analysis, Project description changes, new alternatives, or other Project changes need to be addressed to respond to comments, or if the effort exceeds the estimated hour allotment because of the number or complexity of responses, a contract amendment will be needed. Subtask 6.6.2 Floodplain Encroachment Only Practicable Finding After the Preferred Project Alternative is identified, an assessment will be made as to whether it will result in a significant encroachment to the floodplain. A "significant encroachment" is defined in 23 CFR 650.105 as a highway encroachment and any direct support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following construction or flood -related impacts: 98 6-11 • A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route • A significant risk to life or property • A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values If the Preferred Alternative will result in a significant encroachment to the floodplain, the Final EIS/EIR will include a finding that it is the only practicable alternative. The finding will be supported by the following: • The reasons the proposed action must be located in the floodplain • The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable • A statement indicating whether the proposed action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards Assumptions • The floodplain encroachment only practicable alternative finding will be based on information determined in the location hydraulic study and the Floodplain Evaluation Report. No new analysis will be performed. Subtask 6.6.3 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Develop Draft and Final Section 4(0 Evaluation for properties affected by the Preferred Alternative (when determined applicable by the FHWA based on the Community Impact Assessment). It is assumed that the Section 4(0 Evaluation in the EIS/EIR will evaluate all Section 4(0 impacts along the Preferred Alternative. Assumptions • The Section 4(0 Evaluation will be included as an appendix to the Final EIS/EIR. Subtask 6.6.4 Final EIS/EIR Preparation A Final EIS/EIR will be prepared and distributed to RCTC, Caltrans, DEA/Legal, FHWA, and the Agencies for review m anticipation of public circulation under Task 6.6.5. Deliverables Subsequent to each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the EIS/EIR text to respond to review comments. The deliverables for the Final EIS/EIR are identified below: • Administrative Final EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC • Final EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Final 1 EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Revised Final 2 EIS/EIR for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans and DEA/Legal • Revised Final 3 EIS/EIR for submittal to FHWA and cooperating agencies • Revised Final 4 EIS/EIR for submittal to FHWA and cooperating agencies • 6-12 99 • • • Subtask 6.6.5 Final EIS/EIR Circulation After agency comments have been incorporated and verified by Caltrans and FHWA, the Final EIS/EIR title sheet will be submitted for signature approval and reproduction. CH2M HILL will circulate the Final EIS/EIR using the distribution list developed for the Draft EIS/EIR. Distribution will include appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials representing jurisdictions within the Project area; local residential and business representatives; appropriate civic groups; local libraries; the Project mailing list; and other interested members of the public. CH2M HILL will be responsible for distribution of the Final EIS/EIR to those on the approved list. Up to 200 copies of the document and 100 CDs will be provided for distribution. CDs will be provided for general distribution, electronic upload to the Project website, and to Riverside Blueprint for efficient and cost-effective reproduction of hard copies at the public's request. Deliverables • Final EIS/EIR for public distribution • Electronic copies of Final EIS/EIR on CD Assumptions • Up to 200 hard copies and 100 CDs of the Final EIS/EIR will be printed for distribution. • The Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse will be provided with multiple copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to state agencies. • All documents will be delivered via FedEx or UPS, overnight delivery. Task 6.7 Project Approvals Due to uncertainties concerning Project approval, this scope of services and cost estimate does not include any permit actions (see Task 7.0). However, activities in support of permit actions are anticipated to be required as discussed in the task below. Subtask 6.7.1 Water Permitting Coordination The Project is anticipated to require a permit for potential impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States. In an effort to begin permit coordination with USACE and to involve the public in the environmental process as early as possible, a pre -application notice for a USACE Section 404 permit will be prepared for distribution to the public. This pre - application notice will serve as a pre -cursor public notice to the official notice at the time of the Final EIS/EIR, when a Preferred Alternative is identified for the Project. Deliverables • Pre -application notice for submittal to USACE to publicly notice the Project Build alternatives and request public input regarding identification of the Preferred Alternative. 100 6-13 Assumptions • Permit applications will not be completed as part of this task. Task 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan CH2M HILL will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR. The Plan will incorporate all the mitigation measures developed in the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. The Plan will be consistent with CEQA Guidelines and Caltrans/FHWA procedures. CH2M HILL will work closely with Caltrans staff to develop an implementable and effective Plan consistent with the selected Project alternative. This task will also be used to support Task 2.0 of this proposal. The basic features of the Plan will include the following: • A detailed description of each mitigation measure, grouped by environmental category, providing the following information: - Mandating authority, permit, or document - Responsible party - Plan sheet(s) with specified mitigation measure - Specific tasks and subtasks under each general measure - Timing/frequency of each task (e.g., preconstruction, construction, postconstruction, and frequency) - Verification approval for each measure upon completion of task or major milestone Deliverables The deliverables for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan are identified below. After each review cycle, CH2M HILL will address/resolve and incorporate revisions into the report text to respond to review comments prior to distributing the subsequent draft. • Administrative Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for submittal to RCTC • Revised Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for incorporation in the Administrative and Revised Final EIS/EIR for additional agency review (Caltrans, DEA/Legal, FHWA) • Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for attachment to the Final EIS/EIR circulated to the public • • 6-14 101 • Task 7.0 Future Tasks Not Currently Scoped While several Project activities that are common components of Project approval are known, they are not well-defined enough at this time to describe and include in the current scope of services and cost estimate. These activities are introduced here so that they can be monitored during Project development and further defined for inclusion in a detailed scope of services at a later date. These activities include the following: • Eastern alternative • • • Changes to the project segments or alternatives that would require additional effort not previously included in an existing task. This is specific to new segments outside of the project study area as of December 15, 2004. Additional changes made after the project description update task is completed are also not included. • Additional review cycles of any report or document • PM2.5 hotspot analysis • Air quality health risk assessment • Additional Cultural Resource Investigations • MSHCP Equivalency Analysis • Focused Surveys for 100 percent coverage of suitable habitat (burrowing owl, plants) to support the MSHCP Equivalency Analysis • MSHCP Amendment, either minor or major • Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Permit Applications (CWA Section 401 and 404, CDFG Code Section 1600) • Route Adoption • Freeway Agreement • Record of Decision • Joint Notice of Determination 102 7-1 • • • ATTACHMENT 6 Top Task Existing Contract Task Number Exis ting Co ntract Tas k Name Existing Con tract Budget Resco ping Task Number Rescoping Task Name Total Contract Amo unt Amendment Request Co nti ngency Description of Task Status MANAGEM ENT 1.1 Project Management $116,189.00 1.1 Project Management $361,245 .54 $245,056 .54 The original co ntract was for 24 months beginning in April 2002. The Contract will now run until Decemb er 2007 with the additional scope and work activities, an increase of 45 months. Th e origin al budget was $116,189.00 tot al or $4,841.21 per month. Escalating this rate by 4% pe ryear for three years yields a monthly cost of $5,445 .70 f or th e years 2005 through 2007 . The additional 45 months will c ost a total of $245,056.54. 1.1 Project Development Team Meetings $76,873.00 1.2 Project Develo pment Team Meetings $206,580 .51 $129,707 .51 The original c ontract budgeted for 24 PDT m eetings. The Contract will now run until December 2007 with the additional scope and work activities , an increase of 45 months. The original budget was $76,873 t ot al or $3 ,203.04 per month. The additional 45 PDT meetings will cost a total of $129,707.51 or $3,602 .99 per month calculated based on the original cost supplemented with the cost of living adjustment of 4% per year . 1.1 Agency Coordination $75,766. 00 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings $216,000 .00 $140,234 .00 Origin al c ontra ct included $75,766 for Ag ency Coordin ati on, but did not include monthly m eetings with all of the Resource Agencies, which have become r equir ed as the project has evolved. It is estimated that 54 meetings are necessary and the unit cost per meeting is estimated to be $4,000 for a total budget of $216,000 . 1.1 Stakeholder Meetings $24,338.00 1.5 $216,338.00 $192,000 .00 The original contract pr ojected 10 Stakeholder meetings and budgeted $24,338 .00 or $2,433.80 per meeting. Through the e nd of September 2004 we hav e held 50 meetings of this type . We anticipate that there will be a total of 160 m ore of these meetings through D ecember 2007 . The n ew budget estimate for these meetings Is a total of $192,000 .00 or at a unit cost of $1,200. 1.1 Other Meetings $43,335.00 1. 4 Other Mee tings $140,827.00 $97,492.00 The original contract projected 5 meetings under this task . We now project a t otal of 15 of these meetings through December 2007. Original budget was $43,335 for 5 meetings, which c orresponds to $8,667 p er meeting. Escalating this rate by 4% per year for three years yields a m onthly cost of $9,749.20 f or the years 2005 through 2007. The additi onal 10 meetings will cost $97,492 .00 1.1 Progress Reporting & Invoicing $24,170.00 1.6 Progress Reporting & Invoicing $75,147.43 $50,977.43 The original c ontract was for 24 months b eginning in April 2002. Contract will now run until December 2007, an increas e of 45 m onths. Th e origin al budget was $24,170 .00 for 24 months, which corresponds to $1,007 .08 per month, Escalating this rate by 4% per year for three years yields a monthly cost of $1,132.83 for the years 2005 through 2007 . The additional 45 months will cost $50,977.43. 1.1 Qua lity Contro l $43,137.00 1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control $43,137.00 $0.00 No additional funding requested. 1.1 Landowner Access 58,812,00 T2.01.08 Landowner Access $250,645.42 $241,833 .42 This task is required to establish and maintain access to private property to complete environmental studies . Writt en approval and notification in writing to landowners is requir ed to be submitted wh en surv eys are to be conducted on private property. It is also required to update the d atab ase with property ownership chang es. As numerous new devel opments have been occurring in the project area, additional time Is required to track property status. This task is required because the CTC will not adopt a route designation when environmental studies hav e been conducted on private property without th e pe rmissi on of the l andowner. 3. 2 GIS $56,632.00 T2.01.09 GIS $1,305,555.53 $624,923.53 $624,000.00 Additional budg et fo GIS is required to provid e supp ort to the engi neeri ng and environmental portions of the project . N/A Environmental Streamlining Application 80.00 T1. ES Environmental Streamlinin g Application $2 275 72 $2 275 72 This was a new task to complete the FHW A Environmental Stre amlining Application for the project. Budget for this task w as not incl ud ed in the origin al c ontract. N/A Public Involvement/W ebsite $40,943.00 1. 10 Project Website $63,497.40 $22,554 .40 This task is required to update the project website with new information as project milestones are accomplished . Also, all appr oved project d ocuments are post ed for public review . This is a new activity (posting d ocuments) that has been added to the project since the previous contract. It has proved helpful to co ordinate with the public and requires fewer hard copies of documents to be distributed . Managemen t Subto tal $510,195.00 52,881 249 .55 $1,747,054.55 $624,000.00 2.2 Drainage Studies $165,173.00 3.3 Onsite Drainage Studies $429,173.58 $264,000 .58 The original s cop e involved the f ollowing five items related to the drainag e st udy: collect existing inf ormati on, identify flood plain bound aries, perf orm hydrology calculations, analyze drainage patterns for altemative alignments and determine affect of alignments on drainage patterns, and identify drainage improvements based on Master Plan information . There was no storm water dat a report scope, onsite drainage scope, or NEC - RAS modeling in the original sc ope . We are now adding the following scop e It ems: water quality assessment analysis and report, storm water data analysis and report, onsite dr ainage studies, flood plain evaluation report, and HECRAS modeling for location hydraulic study . These items are required for the EIR/EIS and Project Report and are necessary to meet Caltrans current requirements especially those relative to storm water quality. 3. 1 Location Hydraulic Study N/A $0.00 3.2 Storm Water Data Report $61,101.44 $61,101 .44 This is a n ew task. The Storm Wat er Data R eport is needed to compl ete the envir onm ental impact analysis. We estimate a cost of $61,101 .44 to prep are this r eport. 2.3 Utility Coordination $19,308.00 3.4 Utility Coordination $110,653.00 $91,345.00 The original scope of work included coordinating with the utility companies and l ocating impacted facilities. We now anticipate needing to work with the utility companies to develop mitigation alternatives for those impacted facilities. This includes working with the utility planning, engine ering and right-of-way departments to develop prelimin ary designs for rel ocations so that appr opriate mitigati on requirements can be developed f or the environmental assessment. This would als o include identifying what potential impacts may occur due to those relocations to existing and future facilities and the adjacent properties and proposed Improvements for the roadway. Facilities such as the water system may require prelimin ary modeling to determine possible system loss es with the relo cated facilities. Si nc e the scop e for th e project w as originally developed, a significant amount of de velopment has occurr ed in certain r oadway segments, which includes newly installed utilities that were not in place when the original project scope was developed. 2.4 Geotechnical 519,844. 00 3.5 Geotechnical $191,505.47 $171,661.47 The original scope included ge otechnical input for the project report which included 5 bridge locations. New scope includes up to 15 bridge locations along the alignment . Sc ope has been added for th e Ad vanced Planning Studi es, which will include a subsurfac e evaluation at 15 bridge locations and 4 borrow pit locations . The number of review and revisions has also been increased fr om the original scope . 2. 1 Data Co lle ctio n $20,918.00 $1,501.65 -$19,416.35 Ta sk is c omplet e. ENGINEERING Traffic Analysis $75,468.00 3.6 Traffic Analysis $309,044.53 $233,576.53 The traffic modeling approach for the project has changed from CETAP to the SCAG model and requires analysis year of 2030. All previous work using the CETAP model will be of no use, including the traffic analyses performed for the Purpose and Need Statement. The Mid County Parkway (MCP) project is now underway. The effect of MCP altematives on SR -79 will be analyzed. Approximately 30 traffic counts will be made on roadway segments and at approximately 30 intersections. In addition, vehicle classification counts will be made at 10 locations. This will necessitate making new traffic conditions and identifying any changes in the number of lanes along street segments and at intersections. It is estimated that an additional budget of $233,576.53 will be required to complete the traffic analysis scope that is now identified. N/A $0.00 3.7 Conceptual Landscape Plan $88,555.21 $86,555.21 This is a new task that was not previously identified as an individual task for the project. 2.7 Stage Construction Concepts and TMP $36,356.00 3.8 Stage Construction Concepts and TMP $164,774.08 $128,418.08 The original scope did not include staging concepts to convert the initial expressway to the ultimate freeway configuration. Due to the development pressures in the area, it has been necessary to identify both the interim and ultimate roadway configurations and identify how the construction will be staged throughout the project area. This is a significantly higher level of effort than the original scope. 2.8 Alternative Refinement $53,295.00 3.9 Altemative Refinement $826,954.62 $773,659.62 This task has required a higher level of effort than originally scoped. For all segment alignments, we have developed an interim and ultimate scenario to accommodate the concept of building an initial expressway that can be converted to a freeway. The need to be able to mix and match between segments to create alternative alignments have resulted in additional work in individual segments. The Mid -County Parkway was not envisioned at this project inception, and the development of interchange concepts at that location has resulted in additional scope of work. We anticipate that an additional budget of $773,659.62 will be required to complete the altemative refinement work in support of the Draft Project Report. N/A $0.00 3.11 Value Engineering $42,662.31 $42,662.31 This is a new task. This work in needed because of the size of the project. We estimate a cost of $42,662.31 to complete this task. 2.11 Draft Project Report $27,445.00 3.12 Draft Project Report $127,099.65 $99,654.65 The Project Report Is now anticipated to be a more significant document than originally envisioned. Additional data will need to be incorporated from various disciplines for both interim and ultimate conditions. 2.9 Geometric Approval Drawings $36,774.00 3.18 Geometric Approval Drawings $600,000.00 $0.00 $563,226.00 The original scope only addressed GADs for an interim expressway. We now plan to prepare GADS for both the interim expressway and the ultimate freeway configuration. N/A $0.00 3.13 Aerial Mapping $106,100.00 $0.00 $106,100.00 This Is a new task. New mapping on the Preferred Altemative is needed for the project to progress. The cost for this item is estimated to be $106,100. N/A 3.14 Final Engineering $191,052.02 $191,052.02 This task is for the engineering work that will be needed after the Draft Project Report is approved. It will be the engineering that will support the finalization of the Final Project Report. 2.5 Advanced Planning Studies $52,364.00 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies $183,775.42 $131,411.42 It is anticipated that 15 Advance Planning Studies are needed for the project vs. the five originally budgeted. The additional APSs are needed for the In-depth alternative analysis required for this project. Escalating the original cost by 4% per year for four years for the 15 APSs need a budget of $183,775.42. 2.6 Right -of -Way Data Sheets $26,147.00 3.16 Right -of -Way Requirements $629,057.00 $602,910.00 No additional funding requested. 3 17 Right -of -Way Data Sheets The original contract called for Caltrans to perform this work. We estimate a cost of $602,910 to prepare these documents originally to be provided by Caltrans. 2.10 Cost Estimate $29,677.00 3.10 Cost Estimates $29,677.00 $0.00 No additional funding requested. 2.12 Final Project Report $13,106.00 3.19 Final Project Report $107,763.27 $94,657.27 The Project Report is now anticipated to be a more significant document than originally envisioned. Additional data will need to be incorporated from various disciplines for both interim and ultimate conditions. C-nglneertnn8.frttigtt ,» $$7, ,4i} - 54,200,450.25, $2,955,249.25 5669,326.00 NEPA/404 Activities N/A Purpose & Need $0.00 2.1 Purpose & Need $136,566.14 $136,566.14 This is a new task for the project. Original scope assumed the existing Purpose and Need previously prepared in the PSR would be acceptable and that no additional work would be required. Original budget did not include any money for this task. A total of $136,566.14 was expended to attain federal approval of the Purpose and Need. N/A Criteria and Alternatives Document $0.00 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection Document $250,690.55 $250,690.55 This Is a new task for the project. Original scope assumed that previous work for the PSR would be sufficient for the federal agencies to approve the project alternatives. A total of $250.690.55 was expended on this effort before the Criteria and Alternatives Selection document was approved by the federal agencies. N/A $0.00 2.3 Updated Preliminary Agreement $25,000.00 $25,000.00 This is a new task for the project. It is required because the alternatives selected for the project in the Criteria and Alternatives Selection document will be revised based on scoping comments from the local community. Changing the project altematives requires federal approval. Based on previous federal approvals, it is anticipated that additional documentation will be required for this approval. N/A $0.00 2,4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, &Alts. $61,651.48 $61,651.48 This is a new task for the project. The final alternatives to be included in the draft environmental document are required to be approved by the federal agencies. Based on previous federal approvals, it is anticipated that additional documentation will be required for this approval. N/A $0.00 2.5 Final EIS Preferred/LEDPA Project Alt $61,655.83 $61,655.83 This Is a new task for the project. The final Preferred Altemative to be constructed for the project will be required to be approved by the federal agencies. Based on previous federal approvals, it is anticipated that additional documentation will be required for this approval. N/A $0.00 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Section 404(b)(1) Compliance $73,986.99 $73,986.99 This is a new task for the project. The federal agencies are required to approve that the project met the requirements of the Clean Water Act alternatives analysis process prior to issuing a permit for the project. Based on previous federal approvals, it is anticipated that additional documentation will be required for this approval. N/A Project Description • • • • • • ENVIRONMENTAL N/A $0.00 4.1 Deve lo pment of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports $68,838.41 $68,838 .41 This is a new task that was not previously identified as an individual task for the project. The project description wa s anticipated to be d ev eloped as part of the draft e nvironmental doc ument, and n ot requiring a substantial effort. Because of the rapid growth in the project ar ea, ch anges to the pr oject d escription are required more often than pr eviously anticipated. As more d evelopment has been approved or is pending approval, additional coordination is required to resolve potential land use conflicts with pending developments. In addition, because of the nature of the project altematives being consisted of mixed and matched segments, the project descripti on is now more complicated that previously anticip ated a nd req uiring mor e eff ort. N/A $0.00 4. 2 M odificatio n of Project Alte matives De scription for Environmental Technical Reports $68,830.65 $68,830.65 See description directly above. The project description is anticipated to be required to be modified prior to finalizing the technical reports. Changes to the project description are anticipated to be a required to av oid imp acts to new dev elopments, conflicts with utilities, m odify th e p otential borrow areas, and reduce enviro nme nt al impacts . The ch anges ar e anticipated to result In a less damaging and less costly facility. 3.0 Technical Repo rts $0.00 A number of changes have oc curred to the requir ements (project and ag ency) to prep ar e the technical reports for the project . Caltra ns requirem ents for the technical study contact and format h ave been upd ated . This now requir es a sep arate NEPA and CEQA chapter. In addition, the Caltrans Headquarters review is required. This now requires a minimum of 6 review cycles for the technical reports for RCTC, District 8, and Headquarters review. In addition, the size of the study area has increased. Initially, only the immediate project f ootprint was to be studied. Now a larger study ar ea is includ ed to provide for the flexibility in the project description based on the rapid l and us e changes. 3.7 Air Quality $48,670.00 5.9 Air Q ua lity Tec hnical Re po rt $179,065.63 $130,395.63 Additional budg et is r equest ed to assist with the additional eff ort anticipated to conduct a construction level impact analysis . Specific construction level impacts include vehicle emissions and PM10 (dust) . S everal projects have been r ecently challenged for inadequate air quality analysis related to construction impacts. As the project is anticipated to be constructed In phases, a number of construction staging scenarios will need to be a ss essed, Because additional improvements are anticip ated to oc cur on th e r oadw ay after the initial (opening day) facility will be constructed, additional scenarios will be required to be analyzed. Also, additi onal CO hot spot intersecti on analysis is req uired b ased on the planning of the traffic analysis. Potential reduction of this effort may occur if the air quality district approves a qualitative assessment of air quality impacts, rather than a quantitative assessment . A quantitative assessment is usually c ompl et ed for a project. 3. 2 Bio logical Resources $87,188. 00 5.11 Natural Env ironment Studystudy $238,582 .34 $238,582 .34 Additional budget is requested because it is anticipated that m ore eff ort will be required account for a greater area and document impacts related to vernal pools . This Includes both text and additional mapping . 5.12 Biological Survey Rep orts $9,824 .32 •$77,363.68 The budget shown under this existing task was in the original scope. The original scope has been revised and absorbed into the new scope. This corresponding remaining budget of $77,363.68 should also be absorbed into the amended contract. 5. 12. 2 Burrowing O wl Advanced Recon naissanc e Survey Repo rt $225,622 .20 $225,622.20 This is a new task for the project . Focused surveys were n ot included in the previous scope for the project, as it was unc ertain what sp ecies w ould need surveys b ased on the requirements of the MSHCP. Th e MSHCP had not be en approved wh en the previous contra ct was issued. 5,12.3 Rare Plant Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report $205,372,26 $205,372 .26 This is a new task for th e project. Focused surveys were not i nclud ed in the pr evi ous scope for the pr oj ect, as it was uncertain what species would need surveys based on the requirements of the MSHCP . Th e MSHCP had not been approved when the previous contract was issued. 5.12.4 Riparian Bird Focused Surv ey Report $101,199.73 $101,199.73 This is a new task for the project. Focused surveys were n ot Included In the previ ous scope for the project, as it was unc ertain what sp ecies w ould ne ed surveys b ased on the requirements of the MSHCP. Th e MSHCP had not been approved when the previous c ontract w as issu ed. 5.12.6 Mammal Focused Survey Re port $80,599.49 $80,599 .49 This is a new task for the project . Focused surveys were n ot included in the previous scope for the project, as it was unc ertain what species would need sur veys based on the requir em ents of the MSHCP. The MSHCP h ad not be en approved when the previous c ontract was issued. 5. 13 MSHCP Equivalency An alysis $54,932.83 $54,932.83 This is a new task for the project. This task is intended to develop an appr oach to the required MSHCP equivalency analysis required for the project . The MSHCP had not be en approv ed whe n th e previous c ontra ct was issued, N/A Wet Season Surveys $0.00 5. 12. 5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Focused Survey Report $287 746 .86 $287,746 .86 This is a new t ask f or the project . Focused surv eys were not included in the previous scop e for the project, as it was uncertain what species would need surveys based on the requirements of the MSHCP. N/A Delineatio n $0. 00 5.12.1 Wetland Deline ation Report $276,722.73 $276,722.73 This is a new task for the project. A jurisdictional delineation was not included in the previous scope. 3.3 Cultural Resources $119,013.00 5.4 Cultural Resou rces $1,368,519 .80 $652,506.80 $597,000.00 The in cre ase in th e size of th e study area and additi onal re views of the t echnical reports have dr amatic ally Impacted th e cost of this task . New task items are included in this task as well . This includes pr ogrammatic agreements and advanced site testing and reporting . 5.4 Cultura l Re sources (Sit e Testing) 5.5 Paleontological Evaluation Report 3.10 Traffic & Circula tion $9,573. 00 $9,573 .00 $0.00 No additional funding requested. N/A ;ommunity impact AssessmenCohesion $0.00 5.1 Community Impact Assessment $853,063 .55 $606,830 .55 The C ommunity Impact Assessment technical report will include all of these topics. The additional budget is required to incorporate a review of a greater study area, as well as additional review cycles of the technical report. 3.8 $55,609.00 5.1.7 Economics 3.11 $32,271.00 5.1.3 Farmlands/Agricultural Lands 3.14 $39,406. 00 5.1.1 Land Use N/A $0.00 5.1.2 Growth N/A $0.00 514 .. Community Character & N/A $0.00 5.1.9 Evaluation of Section 4(f) Issues 3. 15 $40,064. 00 3. 13 $23,967.00 5.1.8 Utilities/Services 3. 12 $23,967.00 TOTAL 3.16 $30,949.00 5.1.6 Environmental Justice 3.17 Relocation $44,468.00 5.2 Relocation Impact Report $144,376.93 $99,908.93 The previous scope only anticipated 2 relocations for the project. As additional relocations will be required, more effort for the relocation task is anticipated. 3.5 Water Quality $1,799.00 5.7 Water Quality Assessment Report $173,145.22 $171,346.22 As the project has evolved the water quality issues in the vernal pool area will be critical to getting approval of the project. The level of effort to analyze and evaluate the impacts of the project altematives on the vernal pools is much more significant than originally envisioned. 3.4 Floodplain Impacts $1,799.00 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report $107,201.21 $105,402.21 As the project has evolved the floodplain impacts issues in the vernal pool area will be critical to getting approval of the project. The level of effort to analyze and evaluate the impacts of the project alternatives on the vernal pools is much more significant than originally envisioned. 3.1 eology, Soils & Seismic Hazen $46,699,00 $1,274.27 -$45,424.73 The effort to complete the geology section of the environmental document will be included in the administrative draft document task. 3.6 Noise $50,333.00 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis $355,603.15 $305,270.15 As the number of homes have increased in the project area, the number of sensitive receptors that need to be studied have also increased. N/A $0.00 5.8 Initial Site Assessment $97,022.45 $97,022.45 This is a new task that was not included in the original scope. 3.9 Visual $20,532.00 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment $156,028.11 $135,496.11 The number of structures (bridges and interchanges) added to the project has impacted the cost for this analysis. 4.0 Environmental Document primary reason for the increase in the cost of the preparation of the environmental document is attributed to the number of review cycles. In the previous contract, only two draft documents were anticipated to be required. One administrative draft and one public draft. Only RCTC. Caltrans, and FHWA was anticipated to review the administrative draft document, not the other NEPA/404 MOU federal agencies. Currently, 7 reviews of the draft environmental document will be required. This includes reviews by RCTC (1), Caltrans District 8 (2), Caltrans Headquarters (2), FHWA (1), and the other federal resource agencies (1). This same number of reviews will also be required for the final environmental document. The previous contract only included two versions of the final environemtnal dcoument. Additional time and printing costs are required for all of these additional reviews. 4.1 Draft Environmental Document $99,982.00 6.1 Technical Section Updates $144,396.06 $144,396.06 6 2 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR The $71,437.98 428,544.02 6.2.1 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Preparation $418,779.54 $418,779.54 6.2.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts $122,232.07 $122,232.07 6.3 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation $386,837.22 $193,437.22 $193,400.00 6.4 Draft EIS/EIR Circulation $157,184.07 $157,184.07 4.2 Public Circulation & Hearing $25,108.00 6.5.1 Scoping $60,183.59 $35,075.59 6.5.2 $0.00 $0.00 6.5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing $33,474.98 $33,474.98 6.5.4 Public Hearings $64,374.98 $64,374.98 4.3 Final EIR/EIS $85,478.00 6.6.1 Response to Comments $205,096.71 $205,096.71 6.6.2 Floodplain Encroachment Only Practicable Finding $46,888.75 $46,888.75 6.6.3 Section 4(f) Evaluation $89,008.58 $89,008.58 6.6.4 Final EIS/EIR Preparation $359,897.49 $137,219.49 $137,200.00 6.6.5 Final EIS/EIR Circulation $149,026.36 $149,026.36 4.5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan $13,510.00 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Plan $47,613.52 $34,103.52 4.4 Findings & Record of Decision $8,042.00 $0.00 -$8,042.00 This task will be required for the project, but is included in the list of items that will be scoped at a future date when more information is known about the Preferred Altemative. N/A $0.00 6.7.1 Water Permitting Coordinmon $82,323.13 $42,323.13 This is a new task for the project. It is required to coordinate the technical Issues related to project permitting. Project permits will be scoped at a future date when more information Is know about the Preferred Alternative. Environmental Subtotal $908,427.00 $8,071,451.15 $6,235,424.15 $927,600.00 PRL3tECTTOTA! 51,904,49100 $15;153,150.95' $117,937;727.95 $2,224,926.00 • • • • Summary Progress Update Through December 2, 2004 Riverside County Transportation Commission: State Ro ute 79 Realignment + Te chnical Stu dies a nd Draft EIS/EIR + Rou te Ado ption /Freewa y Agreemen t + Record of D ecision + Notice of Determin ation + Permittin g/Approval Activities Agenc ies- EPA. USAGE. USFW S Ca ntons - Callfomia Depa rtment of Tran sporta tion CDFG - California Department of fish an d Ga me EIR - Environme ntal Impact Re pod EIS - Env iro nmen tal Impac t Statemen t FHWA - Federal Highway Adminirratlon GAD - Geom etric Appro va l Dra wings LEDPA - Leas t Environ mentally Da magin g Prac tic able Alternative MSHCP - Multiple Species Habitat Conserv atio n Plan NOA - Notice of Availability NOC - Notice of Comple tio n NOD - Notice of Determinatio n NOI - No tice of In tent NO P - Notice of Preparatio n ROD - Record of Decision RWQCS - Regio nal Water Qu ality Co ntro l Bo ard 5AA-Slrea mbed Alteration Agreemen t SAMP - Specia l Area Management Plan SHPO - Stale Histo ric Preserva tion Office r SWPPP - Stonnwale r Pullotion Preve ntion Plan USAGE - US Army Corns of Eng ineers USFWS-US Fish and Wildlife Service © Primavera Systems, Inc. 06OCTO3A 270CT03A 19JULO4A 19JULO4A 315 19MAY06 l5DEC06 29JAN07 28FEB07 04 060CTO3A 25JUNO4A 270CT03A 19J ULO4A 19J ULO4A 19MAY06 060CTO4 A 12FEB07 18MAY06 29MAR07 15DECO6 02JUL07 29JAN07 28FEB07 28APR07 02JUL07 25JUNO4A 06 0CT04A 12FEB07 18MAY06 29MAR07 02J UL07 28APR07 02JUL07 1,019 16DECO4 30NOVO4 30SEPO7 30SEPO7 A bbre via tions: A ssumptions. 1) ESA, Se ction 7 consultation not re qu ired; ESA compliance will be provided by approval of MSHCP Equivalency Ana lys is; 2) C WA, Section 404 compliance throu gh SAM P, additio nal do cumenta tion requiremen ts no t clea r at this lime, public no tice will be required, 3) Section 106 co mpliance re quired, MOA an d Section 4(d, no t in clu ded; 4) Concu rre nt review pe riods required on technical studies, D EIS/DEIR, and FEIS/FEIR • Print Date: 01 DECO4 09:50 ATT ACHMENT 7 DEC 02, 04 Update Early Bar NOV 04, 04 Update Early Finish Pr ogress Bar 107 AGENDA ITEM 6F • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 05-31-533 with SC Engineering to Provide Additional Engineering and Environmental Studies for Proposed Improvements to State Route 91 from Mary Street to 7th Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-533, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-009, with SC Engineering to extend the limits of the SR 91 HOV widening project to finalize the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost for a total amount of $306,216; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 12, 2000 meeting, the Commission committed to support the widening of SR 91 between Mary and 7th Streets, in the City of Riverside by adding one HOV lane in each direction. The estimated project cost was $170.7 million (current dollars). At its November 8, 2000 meeting, the Commission approved that $20 million of Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds and $15 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds were available for the project. The preliminary phase of the project is proposed to be funded with a portion of the $20 million of TCRP funds available to the project. To expedite this project, Caltrans and RCTC agreed that the Commission be the lead agency and contract out for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering and environmental studies for the project. Agenda Item 6F 108 At its July 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Agreement No. 02-31-009 to SC Engineering for a total amount of $1,274,430 to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies for the project. The work on this contract has been on -going and is coming to conclusion. In addition to the preliminary engineering work being performed for the project, Caltrans has been upgrading the portion of SR 91 to the west of the project limits by adding auxiliary lanes and modifying the termination point of the eastbound HOV lane. The HOV lane was shortened by the Auxiliary Lane project in order to have the HOV lane terminate by becoming the number one lane. The previous condition forced the HOV lane traffic to merge into the number one lane. After completion of the construction portion of the auxiliary lane project, the project team reviewed the as -built conditions of the freeway to determine if the assumptions for the Mary to 7th Street project would be compatible with the conditions after the auxiliary lane project was constructed. The review determined that the modifications of the HOV lane in the eastbound direction between Adams and Jefferson Streets will require that the Mary to 7th Street project limits be extended to cover this area. In addition to extending the HOV lane between Adams and Jefferson Streets, additional widening and other improvements will have to be performed in order to bring this portion of the freeway up to the same standards as the proposed improvements for the Mary to 7th Street project. SC Engineering estimated the environmental and engineering scope of work that will be required to complete this additional work at $306,216. The proposed Cost and Scope to complete Amendment No. 1 of the project is attached. This will bring the total not to exceed project cost for both the original agreement and Amendment No. 1 to $1,580,646. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $306,216 Source of Funds: Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81101 P3005 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \A4,,_(/,,,v,. 2,'tiv Date: 12/21/2004 Attachment: SR 91 HOV Project Scope and Cost • Agenda Item 6F 109 TRANSROR TA7tON— TRAFFIC- C,Vti.. ENGINEERING PROJECT/CONSTR(.JCT:(}N MANAGEMEN I' November 15, 2004 Route 91 from Mary Street to the 60/91/215 Interchange HOV Widening SC File:91HOV-01-01 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attention: Mr. Bill Hughes Program Manager Subject: Amendment No. 1 Additional Environmental and Design Services Dear Mr. Hughes: Itemized below is a detailed description of additional items that was performed or anticipated to be perform that are not covered in the original scope of work: 1. Incorporation of Vine Street and 10th Street Alternatives A. Update Environmental Technical Studies a) Air Quality Report b) Noise Study c) Natural Environmental Study d) Initial Site Assessment e) Cultural Resources f) 9) h) I) j) Visual Impact Assessment Traffic Operational Analysis Relocation Impact Report Community Assessment Report Administrative Draft IS/EA B. Roadway Engineering a) Alternative Analysis/Geometric Approval Drawings 2. Additional Noise, Cultural Coordination and Administration (Environmental Only) A. Update Environmental Technical Studies a) Noise Study b) Cultural Studies c) Environmental Project Management/Administration 3. Extent Project Limits to Adams Street A. Update Environmental Technical Studies a) b) c) d) e) f) Air Quality Report Noise Study Natural Environmental Study Initial Site Assessment Cultural Resources Visual Impact Assessment 9) h) I) j) k) Traffic Operational Analysis Relocation Impact Report Community Assessment Report Administrative Draft IS/EA Environmental Project Management/Administration Headquarters 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 Victorvilie. CA 92392 760-955-7712 • 7613 -95j -4130 -FAX Mr. Bill Hughes, Program Manager November 15, 2004 Riverside County Transportation Commission Page 2 • B. Roadway Engineering a) Preliminary Structures Foundation Report Jefferson Street UC (Bridge No. 56-387L) and Madison Street UC (Bridge No. 56-384L) b) Advance Planning Study (Bridge) Jefferson Street UC (Bridge No. 56-387L) and Madison Street UC (Bridge No. 56-384L) c) Alternative Analysis/Geometric Approval Drawings d) Storm Water Data Report e) Conceptual Staging Plans/Traffic Handling f) Right of Way Requirements g) Conceptual Drainage Analysis h) Construction Cost Estimates i) Draft/Final Project Report j) Project Report Geometric Layout Plans k) HOV Report (Entire Project, If Required) I) Project Management/Administration/Project Meetings Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to serve RCTC and assist in the process of the approval of the necessary documents and provide a safer transportation facility in Riverside County. Should you have any question, do not hesitate to call me at 760-955-7712. Sincerely, SC ENGINEERING Sal Chavez, PE Principal/Project Manager cc: Project Files -55 Gustavo Quintero, RCTC/Bechtel • • 111 State Route 91, HOV Widening Additional Environmental and Design Services November 1, 2004 ' Task Estimated No. of Sheets Estimated Hrs/Sheet Estimated Hours Firm Cost 1. Incorporation of Vine St and 10th St Alternatives A. Environmental a) Air Quality 1 12.25 12.25 LSA $1,286 b) Noise Study 1 12.25 12.25 LSA $1,286 c) Natural Environmental Study Report (Biology) 1 2.75 2.75 LSA $356 d) Initial Site Assessment 1 2.75 2.75 LSA $356 e) Cultural Resources 1 35.25 35.25 LSA $3,421 f) Visual Impact Assessment 1 2.75 2.75 LSA $356 g) Traffic Operation Analysis 1 8.25 8.25 LSA $1,021 h) Relocation Impact Report 1 8.75 8.75 LSA $866 I) Community Assessment Report 1 8.75 8.75 LSA $866 j) Administrative Draft IS/EA 1 47.00 47.00 LSA $4,660 Subtotal 10 140.75 LSA $14,474 B. Roadway Engineering a) Alternative Analysis/Geometric Approval Drawings 4 30 120 SC $10,205 Subtotal 14 260.75 SC+SUBS $24,679 2. Additional Noise, Cultural Coordination and Administration A. Environmental a) Noise Study 1 33 33 LSA $3,425 b) Cultural Studies 1 235 235 LSA $22,550 c) Environmental Project Management 1 170 170 LSA $22,250 Subtotal 3 438 $48,225 3. Extend Project Limits to Adams Street A. Environmental a) Air Quality 1 60 60 LSA $5,280 b) Noise 1 202 202 LSA $18,150 c) Natural Environmental Study 1 42 42 LSA $12,470 d) Initial Site Assessment 1 54 54 LSA $5,010 e) Cultural Resources 1 426 426 LSA $36,130 f) Visual Impact Assessment 1 108 108 LSA $9,990 g) Traffic Operation Analysis 1 62 62 LSA $5,970 h) Relocation Impact Report 1 23 23 LSA $2,115 I) Community Impact Assessment 1 42 42 LSA $3,830 j) Administrative Draft IS/EA 1 78 78 LSA $7,050 k) Project Management 1 130 130 LSA $17,450 Subtotal 1227 $123,445 B. Roadway Engineering a) Preliminary Structure Foundation Report Jefferson St UC (56-387L) & Madison St UC (56-384L) b) Advance Planning Study (Bridge) 2 44.5 89 GD $8,905 Jefferson St UC (56-387L) & Madison St UC (56-384L) 2 61 122 TYLIN $13,880 c) Alternative Analysis/Geometric Approval Drawings 3 72 216 SC $18,369 d) Storm Water Data Report 1 24 24 SC $2,041 e) Conceptual Staging Plans/Traffic Handling 4 16 64 SC $5,443 f) Right of Way Requirements 6 4 24 SC $2,041 g) Conceptual Drainage Analysis 1 40 40 SC $3,402 h) Construction Cost Estimates/Schedules 1 24 24 SC $2,041 I) Draft/Final Project Report 1 80 80 SC $6,803 j) Project Report Geometric Layout Plans 6 32 192 SC $16,328 k) HOV Report (Entire Project) 1 120 120 SC $10,205 1) Project Management/Administration/Project Meetings 1 240 240 SC $20,410 Subtotal 29 1235 $109,867 Subtotal 51 2462.0 $233,312 Subtotal Additional Scope of Services 3161 $306,216 Budget Addendum_01_11.01.2004 112 State Route 91, HOV Widening Additional Environmental and Design Services COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: SC ENGINEERING PROJECT: State Route 91 SCOPE OF WORK Additional Environmental and Design Items DATE November 1, 2004 REVISION MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: SUMMARY DIRECT LABOR PE Sal Chavez Carl Sosa/Staff David Jenkins/Staff John Davis/Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff ONNEL 1 FUNCTION ;<= Project Manager Senior Engineer Civil Engineer Civil Engineer Bridge Engineer CADD Operator/Technician Landscape Architect Project Controls H URS „ I RATE j AAMIOUNT 137 $ 206 $ 206 $ 217 $ 0 $ 47.00 42.00 33.00 30.50 343 $ 20.50 0 $ 35 $ 16.00 $6,439 $8,652 $6,798 $6,619 $0 $7,032 $0 $560 TOTAL HOURS MULTIPLIERS 1,144 1,144 $36,099 ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAL/ADMINISTRATIVE @ PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ OTHER DIRECT COST ,ITEM .. 116.57% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 28.43% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 145.00% $ 42,080.60 $ 10,262.95 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $52,344 Reproduction Cost UANTITY 1 UNIT j" UNITCOST I AMOUNT 0 LS $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES OUTSIDE SERVICES (w/o fee) $0 ;OMPANY ,, LSA & ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS GROUP DELTA TYLIN INTERNATIONAL AEI-CASC ADM LINT.. $186,144 $o $8,905 $13,880 $0 $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $208,929 SC ENGINEERING @ 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $ 8,844.26 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS SUBTOTAL COST EXCESS BUDGET TOTAL COST $8,844 $306,216 $0 $306,216 • • Budget Addendum_01_11.01.2004 113 LSA Budget • LSA Budget Increase No. 2 (05-28-03) (Expansion of Environmental Documents, incorporate Alternative 5) LSA Budget Increase No. 3 (01-27-04) (Incorporate Vine Street & 10th) LSA Budget Increase No . 4 (06-04-04) (Additions P M, Cultural Comments, and Noise Coordination) LSA Budget Increase No . 5 (09-20-04) (Extend Project Limits to Adams) SU MMARY (TOTAL) Percent Increase Total Hours Direct Costs Total Costs Total Hours Direct Costs Total Cost s Total Hours Direct Costs Total Costs Total Hours Direct Costs Total Costs 146 $16,400 170 $1,200 $22,250 130 $800 $17,450 $66,020 566% 54 $5,365 12.25 $100 $1,286 60 $100 $5,280 $16,831 243 % 69 $4,240 12.25 $100 $1,286 33 $100 $3,425 202 $300 $18,150 $34,461 368 % 2.75 $100 $356 42 $8,600 $12,470 $18,706 218% 2.75 $100 $356 54 $500 $5,010 $9,946 117% 216 $20,020 35.25 $100 $3,421 235 $400 $22,550 426 $600 $36,130 $101,111 432 % 2.75 $100 $356 108 $250 $9,990 $21,386 94 % 8. 25 $300 $1,021 62 $500 $5,970 $25,591 38 % ($5,000) $900 -85 % 55 $4,505 8.75 $100 $866 23 $100 $2,115 $20,566 57 % 55 $4,505 8.75 $100 $866 42 $100 $3,830 $21,646 74% 80 $6,930 $6,930 $4,660 78 $100 $7,050 $25,910 82 % $5,180 0% $4,470 0% 20 $1,990 $17,150 13 % $7,540 0% $5,890 0% $9,320 0% i 695.00 $0 $58,955 93.75 $1,100 $14,474 438.00 $1,700 $48,225 1227.00 $11,950 $123,445 $419,554 182 % $233,410 $247,884 $296,109 $419,554 Septembe•2004 LSA January 27, 2004 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-4731 Mr. Sal Chavez SC Engineering 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 Victorville, CA 92392 949.553.0666 TEL 949.553.8076 FAX OTHER OFFICES: FT. COLLINS BERKELEY RIVERSIDE PT. RICHMOND ROCKLIN Subject: Contract Change Order No. 3 for the State Route 91 (SR -91) Improvement Project from Brockton Avenue/Mary Street to the 91/60/215 Interchange in the City of Riverside Dear Mr. Chavez; This letter replaces LSA's change order request No. 3 of December 24, 2003, for the proposed widening of State Route 91 between Brockton Avenue/Mary Street and the 91/60/215 interchange to accommodate HOV lanes (one HOV lane in each direction) through the City of Riverside. This budget augment request covers the additional services, outlined below, required to revise the draft technical studies to include the 10th Street and the Vine Street modifications and to reformat the Draft EA/IS document consistent with Caltrans November 2003 EA/IS format guidelines. These services were not included in the original scope of work and budget (LSA proposal dated April 10, 2002, and Exhibit D to the original contract), contract change order No. 1 (LSA letter dated August 23, 2002) or contract change order No. 2 (LSA letter dated July 28, 2003). SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES Revisions to Draft Technical Studies The technical studies (noise, air quality, ISA, NES, delineation, DRIR, CIA, cultural [including APE map], and visual) will be revised to include the proposed modifications to loth Street and Vine Street. These modifications apply uniformly to Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. This item also covers additional costs associated with coordination of information regarding these modifications, field surveys (for cultural), review and quality control of the revised draft technical studies, word processing, graphics and geographic information systems services, and reproduction costs for copying and distribution of the revised technical studies. Only one cycle of review by SC Engineering and one cycle of Caltrans review is assumed, since many of these studies were previously reviewed and approved. The cost of these services is estimated at $9,816. Reformat Draft EA/IS LSA submitted the Draft EA/IS to SC Engineering and the RCTC for review on November 14, 2003. In mid -November 2003, Caltrans published new guidelines for the required format for EA/IS 01/27/Oled :\SA1i230\Corresptmdence\CO3 revi,ed.doc>' PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SIIt5;ES DESIGN I.SA ASSOCIATES, INC. documents. To be consistent with the new EA/IS guidelines, preparation of several new sections and substantial reformatting of the current draft document will be required. LSA will reformat the draft EA/IS per the November 2003 format guidelines prior to submitting the EA/1S to Caltrans for review. The cost of these services is estimated at $4,660. COMPENSATION AND TERMS These services will be completed on a time and materials basis, with the total cost not to exceed $14,476. LSA will not exceed this amount without your prior authorization. This is LSA's best estimate for the cost of these environmental services, based on LSA's knowledge and understanding of the project at this time. However, changes in the project design; the project schedule; or Caltrans, FHWA, or resource agency requirements may result in additional tasks and associated costs. When the $9,884 for this change order request is added to the currently authorized budget of $243,460 (the original budget of $158,980 plus change order request No. 1 for $25,525 and change order request No. 2 for $58,955), the new total budget is $257,936. LSA requests your prompt authorization in order to maintain the project schedule. If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me or King Thomas at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Rob McCann President Attachment: CO No. 3 Budget Spreadsheet cc: King Thomas SAE230 Billing File SAE230 Project File 01/27/O4 P:\SAE23O\Correspcndencc\CO3 rev ised.doe* 116 LS AAS•TES, I NC. DECEMBER 2003 • • SR -91 Improvements Project (Brockt on -Mary Street to 60/91/215 Interchange) PR Budget Augme nt No. 3—LS A Staffing Allocations for Additio nal Environme ntal Services LSA Labor Classifications Total Ho urs Total Costs Task Task Description Pri ncipal Associate/Proj Mgr Analyst/Tech Graphics/ GIS WP/Clerical by Task Direct Costs by Task 1 Env ironmental Technical Studies Noise 0.25 4 4 2 2 12 .25 $100 $1,286 Air Quality 0.25 4 4 2 2 12 .25 $100 $1,286 ISA 0.25 0 .5 1 1 2 .75 $100 $356 NES an d. Delineation 0.25 0 .5 1 1 2.75 $100 $356 DRIR 0.25 0.5 4 2 2 8.75 $100 $866 CIA 0.25 0.5 4 2 2 8.75 $100 $866 Visual Impact Assessment 0.25 0.5 1 1 2 .75 $100 $356 H PSR, ASR, and HR ER 4 1 16 2 4 27 $100 $2,670 APE Map 0.25 1 5 2 8 .25 $751 Traffic Report 0.25 1 4 1 2 8.25 $300 $1,021 2 R eformat EA/IS per 11/03 format 2 4 40 2 8 56 $4,660 TOTAL HOURS 8. 25 17.5 84 15 25 149.75 $1,100 $14 Billing Rate by Classification $185 $120 $75 $105 $75 1/27/04 (P.\SAE230\Co rresponden ce\budget_Augment.3revised.xls) 117 S A June 4, 2004 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92614-4731 Mr. Sal Chavez SC Engineering 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 Victorville, CA 92392 949.553.0666 TEL 949.553.8076 FAX BERKELEY FORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROCKLIN SAN LUIS OBISPO Subject: Contract Change Order No. 4 for the State Route 91 (SR -91) Improvement Project from Brockton Avenue/Mary Street to the 91/60/215 Interchange in the City of Riverside Dear Mr. Chavez: This letter addresses LSA's change order request No. 4 for the proposed widening of State Route 91 between Brockton Avenue/Mary Street and the 91/60/215 interchange to accommodate HOV lanes (one 1-IOV lane in each direction) through the City of Riverside. This budget augment request covers the additional services, outlined below, required for project management and meetings through September 2005 and for additional work required to respond to Caltrans comments on the Draft HPSR. These services were not included in the original scope of work and budget (LSA proposal dated April 10, 2002, and Exhibit D to the original contract), contract change order No. 1 (LSA letter dated August 23, 2002), contract change order No. 2 (LSA letter dated July 28, 2003), or contract change order No. 3 (LSA letter dated January 27, 2004). SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES Project Management and Meetings Change Order request No. 2 covered project management and meetings through June 2004. Based on the updated project schedule, the environmental document (EA/IS) for the project is anticipated to be approved by September 2005. Therefore, the project schedule is extended by at least 15 months beyond what was anticipated in change order request No. 3. This task includes attendance at up to 15 project development team or other meetings as well as ongoing project management through September 2005. The cost of these services is estimated at $22,250. Reponses to Caltrans Draft HPSR Comments LSA submitted the Draft HPSR to Caltrans for review on August 25, 2003. Caltrans provided extensive comments on the Draft HPSR (dated January 26, 2004; copy attached). The authorized scope and budget assumed a level of effort similar to that required by Caltrans District 8 for cultural resource documentation on projects approved by Caltrans in the recent past (e.g., SR-91/La Sierra). However, the January 26, 2004, Caltrans comments required a much higher level of effort. The bullet items below explains how Caltrans requirements have changed and why additional effort is required. • We had assumed that we could use a previously prepared contextual history of the area (Rick Starzak, HPSR, Riverside County, Interstate 215 Improvement Project, March 1993). Our Y.'iSAE23O‘.Co rrespondtoce iCO4. doc P1 ANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL s :JII"8f Fs 1 DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. assumption that we could use this contextual history was based on the fact that this history was written by a credible source, was previously approved by Caltrans, and covered the SR -91 Improvement Project area. However, Caltrans District 8 required that a new history be written to comply with the new National Trust for Historic Places Bulletin on historic Residential Suburbs. We had previously treated the architectural properties as individual entities but are now required to discuss and evaluate them within the context of suburban tracts for any potential historic districts or cultural landscapes (i.e., curvilinear streets, landscaping, street furniture). The buildings in the APE then had to be evaluated within the context of residential suburbs, rather than individually, necessitating changing the evaluations on the forms (but not the definitions of significance). We also had to survey all the architectural resources in each tract to determine whether the buildings in the APE could be contributors to a potential historic district. This also required surveying several other tracts in Riverside of the same time period and area to determine how those in the APE compared. In the past, Assessor's records have always been used to establish build dates. Caltrans January 26, 2004, comments require additional research, stating that Assessor's records were not always accurate, and requesting that we research building permits, subdivision maps and plats, architects associated with tract home builders, and city directories for building -specific information, historical context, and evaluating historical significance for each property. Caltrans also required photographs and records for the sheds, garages, and other buildings located at the rear of several parcels. The cost of these services is estimated at $22,550. City of Riverside Review of Soundwalls and Subsequent Revisions to Noise Analysis Caltrans has requested that the City of Riverside review and concur with the recommended soundwalls (heights, locations, and walls recommended for construction) in the Noise Analysis. The following items are included in this task: • Attendance at the May 28, 2004, meeting with the City of Riverside Planning Department to discuss soundwall heights. • Preparing revised soundwall exhibits and soundwall tables per the City's request. Revisions to the Noise Analysis (text and figures) required to address the City's comments regarding soundwall heights, soundwall locations, and the soundwalls that are recommended to be constructed. The cost of this task is estimated at $3,425. COMPENSATION AND TERMS These services will be completed on a time and materials basis, with the total cost not to exceed $48,225. LSA will not exceed this amount without your prior authorization. This is LSA's best 614/2 0040 P:',S 11:2 30'.Correspondoice\CO4.dov> 119 LSA ASSOCIATES,INC- estimate of the cost of these environmental services based on LSA's knowledge and understanding of the project at this time. However, changes in the project design, the project schedule, or Caltrans, FHWA, or resource agency requirements may result in additional tasks and associated costs. When the $48,225 for this change order request is added to the current) y original budget of $158,980 plus change order request No. 1 for $25,r525d and budchange orderr request No. 2 for $58,955) plus change order request No. 3 for $14,476 (CO #3 is awaiting approval from SC Engineering), the new total budget is $306,161. LSA requests your prompt authorization in order to maintain the project schedule. If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me or King Thomas at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. • rj F. Rob McCann President Attachment: January 26, 2004, Caltrans HPSR comments CO No. 4 Budget Spreadsheet cc: King Thornas SAE230 Billing File SAE230 Project File 6/4/2004<P'tSA f:230\CorrrypondLncc'CC)4.doc» 3 120 LSATES, INC . DECEM R 2003 • • SR -91 Impro veme nts Project (Brockton -Mary Street to 60/91/215 Interchange) PR B udget Augment N o. 4—LSA Staffi ng Allocatio ns for Additional Environmental Services LSA Labor Classifications Total Hours T otal Costs Task Task Description Principal l'ech Princ/Assoc/PD Noise Tech Analyst/Tech Graphics/GIS WP/Clerical by Task Direct Costs by Task 1 Project Mgmnt & Meetings 10 160 170 $1,200 $22,250 2 Responses to Caltran s HPSR Com nts 2 80 120 16 20 238 $400 $22,550 3 Soun dwalls - City Review 1 8 8 8 6 2 33 $100 $3,425 TOTAL HOURS 13 248 8 128 22 22 441 $1,700 $48,225 Billing Rate by Classification $185 $120 $100 $75 $105 $75 6/3/04 (P:\SAE230\Correspon dence\budget_Augmen t.4.xls) 121 State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Memorandum To: From: Subject: • RAGHURAM RADHAKRISHNAN Project Manager Program Project Management MARIE J. PETRY Office Chief Environmental Planning — MS 821 Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Date: January 26, 2004 File: 08-RIV -91-KP 27.8/34.8 SR -91 HOV Improvements EA: 448400 Review Comments for Draft Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) Following are comments on the first draft Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) submitted on September 2003 for the above referenced project. At this time, District 8 Cultural Studies cannot complete an in-depth review of the HPSR and attachments as submitted. Instead, initial comments on the format and content of the Section 106 documentation are provided. The consultant will need to address these comments in a revised draft HPSR for review by Caltrans Cultural Studies. General 1. Based on the nature of the comments, Cultural Studies proposes discussing the comments with the consultant and the potential use of the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) prior to making revisions. 2. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/env/cultural is the web address leading to the PA. 3. FHWA, Caltrans, and RCTC are the project proponents. Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) 1. The report needs to follow the format and content provided in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook, volume 2, (Draft July 2001), Exhibit 17. This can be found on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/EHvol2.pdf. 2. Description of project limits in text is not consistent with limits shown on maps (also applies to NASR and HRER). "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 122 RAGHURAM RADHAKRISHNAN January 26, 2004 2 3. When identifying resources of the built environment, linear resources (e.g., Riverside Upper Canal) are distinguished from architectural resources (this comment also applies to the HRER). 4. Previous determinations of eligibility for the National Register and locally designated resources need clarification (this comment also applies to the HRER). Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map 1. The base map is too faint and does not adequately show existing physical features of the environment. 2. Representation of residential tracts is prominent, yet the tracts are not evaluated; tract boundaries need clarification. Caution use of the word "historic." 3. Riverside Upper Canal should not be singled out as a resource on the legend; caution use of word "historic." This resource needs consistent identification with the Map Reference number on the map sheets. 4. Additional local street names are needed on various map sheets. 5. Railroad right-of-way needs to be delineated consistently on the map sheets - 6. The gaps within the Map Reference Numbers are challenging to follow and should be revised. 7. Sheet 8 of 11 includes a double row of dashed lines, not included in the legend. Negative Archaeological Survey Report (NASR) 1. (Project Description) It should be a brief description of the type of highway project and its location. 2. (Present Environment) Discussion of Parcel 219-043-012 mentions a house previously on the site. Clarify if there was any surface evidence of the building (e.g., concrete slab/ foundation). Any such features pre -dating 1957 need to be recorded and evaluated as an historical archaeological resources, thus; changing the result of the ASR to positive findings. 3. (Sources Consulted, Results) Clarify the results of previous surveys within the project area. 4. (Remarks) Provide appropriate information (e.g., none, consideration of potential for buried historical archaeological resources given urban setting). • • • "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 123 RAGHURAM RADHAKRISHNAN January 26, 2004 • 3 Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) 1. The report needs to follow the format and content provided in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook, volume 2, (Draft July 2001), Exhibit 30. This can be found on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vo12/EHvol2.pdf. 2. Qualifications of the archaeologists conducting research on resources of the built environment need to be reviewed by Caltrans, Cultural Studies. 3. (Historical Overview) The majority of the information is not adequate. Some of the material was copied from another report prepared in 1993 for an area north of the APE for this project. The overview needs to pertain to all of the resources (e.g., building types) identified within the APE and their pertinent themes and periods of significance. Current material on residential suburbs should be consulted (e.g., National Register Bulletin on Historic Residential Suburbs [September2001]), especially in consideration of any potential historic districts. This section needs to provide an appropriate context for evaluating all of the resources. 4. (Description of Cultural Resources) Summaries of descriptions, etc. need to be brief. 5. (Resource Significance) Resource significance (or lack of) needs to be linked with context in the Historical Overview. Information currently presented is a general, geographical chronology. 6. General editing is needed for endnotes and bibliography. CA Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms 1. Current NRHP status codes are required. 2. The resource name needs to follow State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) instructions. 3. (Primary Record) Some buildings are not visible enough in photographs selected. 4. (Primary Record) Survey type is intensive for Section 106 compliance. 5. (Building, Structure, Object Record) Use "Ranch House" accordingly rather than the term "Modem Minimal Traditional" under Architectural Style. Given the number of such examples identified, the historical overview in the HRER needs to include a greater discussion of this style. 6. (Building, Structure, Object Record) Significance statements need to be substantiated. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 124 RAGHURAM RADHAKRISHNAN January 26, 2004 4 • 7. (Building, Structure, Object Record) National Register eligible properties need to include discussion of integrity. 8. (Building, Structure, Object Record) Approximately four additional resources appear potentially eligible for the National Register (Map Reference Numbers 49, 52, 61, 88). 9. (Building, Structure, Object Record) Building permits and city directories need to be used for building specific information, historical context, and evaluating historical significance. 10. (Building, Structure, Object Record) Sketch maps are not adequate; they need to show the building's footprint, parcel, etc. (see OHP instructions). If you have any questions, please contact Aaron Burton, Associate Environmental Planner at (909) 388-7069. • "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 125 LSA ASSOCIATES, 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-4731 September 20, 2004 Mr. Sal Chavez SC Engineering 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 Victorville, CA 92392 949.553.0666 TEL 949.553.8076 FAX BERKELEY RIVERSIDE FORT COLLINS ROCKLIN POINT RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO Subject: Contract Change Order No. 5 for the State Route 91 (SR -91) Improvement Project from Brockton Avenue/Mary Street to the 91/60/215 Interchange in the City of Riverside (Alternative 2) Dear Mr. Chavez: This letter addresses the LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) change order request No. 5 for the proposed widening of SR -91 between Brockton Avenue/Mary Street and the 91/60/215 interchange to accommodate high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (one HOV lane in each direction) through the City of Riverside. This budget augment request covers the additional services, outlined below, required to evaluate the environmental impact of extending the project limits to the west to include HOV lanes between Brockton Avenue/Mary Street and Adams Street in the City of Riverside (covers Alternative 2 only). These services were not included in the original scope of work and budget (LSA proposal dated April 10, 2002, and Exhibit D to the original contract), contract change order No. 1 (LSA letter dated August 23, 2002), contract change order No. 2 (LSA letter dated July 28, 2003), contract change order No. 3 (LSA letter dated January 27, 2004), or contract change order No. 4 (LSA letter dated June 4, 2004). SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES Project Definition This task includes the following: • Attendance by the LSA Project Manager at up to three meetings (including a field meeting) with SC Engineering, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and Caltrans to define the revised project description, including the extended project limits • Review environmental documentation, including technical studies, prepared for the recently constructed "Greiner" project and Auxiliary Lane project to determine what was addressed by these projects and how the results of these studies may affect the work effort required to address the extended project limits for the SR -91 Improvement project 09/20/04 «P. SA1:2 30'\Correspondence\COS.ahcrnalive 2.doc.> PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL. 126.CFS 1 DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Project Management and Meetings This task includes project management and attendance by the LSA Project Manager at up to 14 meetings including Project Development Team (PDT) meetings or other meetings from September 2005 through September 2006. Attendance at up to two meetings by LSA's Principal in Charge is also included in this task. Technical Studies The effort to revise the technical studies to include the extended project limits is based on the following: • The limited information that LSA has at this time regarding the proposed improvements and the area included within the extended project. • Evaluation of one Build Alternative, Alternative 2, described below, and the No Build condition. • Two rounds of Caltrans review with all major comments requiring a substantial work effort in the first round; the second round is for minor cleanup comments only. • An extension of the project schedule of up to one year to September 2006. • The technical studies for the previously constructed "Greiner" and Auxiliary Lane projects will be reviewed. Depending upon what the studies addressed and the results of these studies, this scope and budget may be reduced. Alternative 2. SR -91 would be restriped on the north side and widened on the south side to add one HOV lane in the median in each direction. The existing SR -91 overcrossings on the south side would be widened, and retaining walls and possibly sound walls would be constructed as required. Biological Resources (Natural Environment Study Report [NESR] revisions) A field study will be conducted to determine if there are sensitive biological resources within the extended project limits. The project description and graphics for the NESR will be revised to include the extended project limits and the results of the field survey. It is assumed that no sensitive biological resources, including jurisdictional waters, are located within the extended project limits. If sensitive species or wetlands are affected by the extended project limits, modifications to the scope and budget may be required. Bat Surveys Bat surveys were conducted for the original project limits (Focused Survey Report for Sensitive Bat Species, State Route 91 Improvement Project between Brockton Avenue/Mary Street and the 60/91/215 Interchange, Philip Leitner, October 4, 2000) to determine if bats are roosting under the SR -91 overcrossings. A bat survey will need to be conducted to determine if bats are roosting under the overcrossings within the extended project limits (Brockton/Mary to Adams) that are proposed for 09/20/04 «PASAC230\Correspondence\C O Aternatne 2_doc» 2 L 127 I.JA ASSOCIATES. INC. • widening. There are at least five undercrosssings within the extended project limits. The results of the bat surveys will be summarized in the NESR and the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS). Air Quality Analysis. LSA will prepare a revised Air Quality Assessment for the proposed project in accordance with the Caltrans Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide (CO) Protocol, Caltrans Project -Level PM10 Hot Spot Analysis Interim Guidance, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Handbook air quality guidelines. LSA will conduct the screening analyses specified in the protocol and, if necessary, conduct CALINE4 modeling for CO hot spots for the Future No Build and one Build Alternative. Construction -related emissions will be quantified and discussed in a general format unless project -specific information is available. The air quality analysis will also include discussion of the compatibility of the project with the requirements of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). SC Engineering and the RCTC will be responsible for updating the RTP/FTIP as required. Noise Analysis. LSA will prepare a revised noise study to address the potential noise impact of the proposed project on sensitive receptors, such as the existing residential areas north of SR -91, in the project vicinity. Short-term noise measurements (15 minutes) will be taken at up to 10 receptor locations to document the existing noise environment, as well as to calibrate the traffic noise prediction model. Caltrans SOUND 32 model will be used to evaluate the traffic noise levels associated with the Existing, Future No Build, and one Build Alternative. Recommendations will be made for any required noise abatement measures, including sound walls. Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment This task includes conducting research required to prepare a revised ISA for the extended project limits. All ISA work will be conducted in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1597-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The following tasks will be conducted as part of this evaluation: • LSA will conduct an agency records database search to identify hazardous waste sites located within the ASTM radius of the project site and classified as hazardous waste under State law. The records search will also identify business types located within the ASTM radius that store, transfer, or utilize large quantities of hazardous materials. This information will be obtained from records maintained by federal, State, and local agencies. LSA will utilize a database service to perform this search. • Historic land use information for the study area will be reviewed to determine whether previous uses in the project area may have resulted in hazardous waste contamination. This information includes historic aerial photographs, historic USGS maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Oil and Gas maps, available groundwater depth/flow data, County directories, County Assessor's data, and building permits. 09/20/03 oP-\SAE2301Correspundalce\CO5.Ahernative 2.doc-» 3 128 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. • LSA will conduct a visual survey of the project area via public right-of-way to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination. Access to private property or Caltrans right-of- way shall be provided by the Lead Agency. • If hazardous waste sites are identified within the project area (via governmental records and/or the visual survey), LSA will review available public records at the appropriate oversight agency to determine the potential impact to the project. • LSA will prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations based on the site survey and historical records review. This scope of work does not include review of private records or interviews with private property owners. If an update to the ISA is requested at a later date, the additional research and report of findings will require additional budget. Cultural Resources Before LSA completes further cultural resource tasks, the results of studies prepared for the previous "Greiner" and Auxiliary Lane projects will be reviewed. Depending on what was addressed by these previous reports and the conclusions of these reports, the cultural resources scope and budget may be reduced. If previous documentation does not exist or does not address all construction impacts within the extended project limits (e.g. pavement widening, retaining walls, sound walls, widening overcrossings), the impact (including visual impact) to the historical significance of all buildings that are at least :30 years old will need to be evaluated. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map, project description, and text of the previously prepared cultural studies will be revised to include the extended project limits. Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) LSA will prepare a revised VIA that evaluates the visual impact of the proposed improvements within the extended project limits from several nearby viewpoints. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) VIA for Highway Project guidelines will provide the basis for the visual analysis. This assessment shall describe the existing visual characteristics of the extended project limits area and vicinity and any significant visual resources. The potential visual impacts from project construction (e.g. improvements such as sound walls, retaining walls, widened overcrossings) and use will be evaluated through the use of ground -level photographs from viewpoints near the project site. Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce any significant impacts. This scope of work provides for the preparation of up to four photo simulations that compare existing conditions to the postproject conditions. The PDT shall approve the location for the visual simulations. Relocation Impact Report This scope and budget assume that no residences and/or businesses will he displaced by the proposed improvements within the extended project limits_ Therefore, the only revision to the previously 09/20/04 .J'_vSAE2 i0'Correspondence'v.00i.Altarative 2_doo> 4 129 LSA ASSOCIATES. (NC. • prepared Relocation Impact Study (Brockton/Mary to the 60/91/215 interchange) will be to update the project description and graphics as required to include the extended project limits. In the event that residences or businesses will be displaced by the project, a modified scope and budget will be required to conduct the additional analysis. Community Impact Assessment (CIA) The project description, graphics, and text of the previously prepared CIA (Brockton/Mary to the 60/91/215 interchange) will be updated to include the extended project limits. This scope and budget assume that no residences and/or businesses will be displaced by the proposed improvements within the extended project limits. Traffic Impact Analysis LSA will prepare an addendum to the Traffic Operations Analysis that includes analysis of the following additional freeway segments: • Adams Street on -ramp to Madison Street off -ramp • Madison Street off -ramp • Madison Street off -ramp to Madison Street on -ramp • Madison Street on -ramp • Madison Street on -ramp to Arlington Avenue off -ramp Existing a.m. and p.m. peak -period traffic counts will be collected at the Madison Street ramp terminus intersections. Existing freeway mainline traffic volumes will be developed by adding and subtracting ramp volumes to and from the mainline volumes developed for the previously approved Traffic Operations Analysis. Future traffic volumes will be developed using the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) traffic model. It is anticipated that the model runs obtained for the previously approved Traffic Operations Analysis will be able to be used to develop these volumes. If new model runs are required, it is assumed that SCAG modeling fees will be paid directly by RCTC. The raw traffic model output will be postprocessed according to methodologies approved by RCTC and other regional transportation agencies. Level of service (LOS) analyses will be performed for existing conditions. LOS analyses will also be prepared for the No Project Alternative and up to two proposed Build Alternatives for each of the future analysis years (opening year and year 2030 conditions). The LOS analyses will include the following: • Freeway mainline operations analysis • Merge -diverge operations analysis 09/20/04«P:\SAE230\Correspondence'\C05.Alternative 2.doc» 5 130 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. All LOS analyses will be conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. The results of the traffic operations analysis will be presented in a technical study. This study will document the methodologies used to develop forecast traffic volumes, the LOS analysis methodologies employed, existing traffic conditions, and forecast future traffic conditions for each alternative. Update Draft EA/IS The previously prepared Draft EA/IS (Brockton/Mary to the 60/91/215 interchange) will be updated to include the extended project limits and the results of the revised technical studies listed above. COMPENSATION AND TERMS These services will be completed on a time and materials basis, with the total cost not to exceed $123,445 (please see budget spreadsheet attached). LSA will not exceed this amount without your prior authorization. This is LSA's best estimate of the cost of these environmental services based on LSA's knowledge and understanding of the project at this time. However, changes in the project design; the project schedule; or Caltrans, FHWA, or resource agency requirements may result in additional tasks and associated costs. When the $123,445 for this change order request is added to the currently authorized budget of $257,936 (the original budget of $158,980 plus change order request. No. 1 for $25,525, change order request No. 2 for $58,955, and change order request No. 3 for $14,476), plus change order request No. 4 for $48,225 (change order request No. 4 is pending RC IC approval), the new total budget is $429,606. LSA requests your prompt authorization in order to maintain the project schedule. If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me or King Thomas at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Rob McCann President Attachment: CO No. 5 Alternative 2 Budget Spreadsheet cc: King Thomas SAE230 Billing Fite SAE230 Project File 09/20/04 «':`SAE230\Correspondence\C05.Altemative 2_doc> 6 131 L .SA •CIATES, INC. SEP TEMBER 2004 • • SR -91 Improvements Project (Brockton/Mary Street to 60/91/215 I nterchange) PR Budget Augment No . 5 Alternative 2 —Extended Project Limits—LSA Staffing Allocations for Additional Environmental Services Task Ta sk Description Pri ncipal Tech Princ/ Assoc/PM Noise Tech Analyst/ Tech Graphics/GIS WP/Clerical by T ask Direct Costs by Task LS A Labor Classificatio ns Total Hours T otal Costs 1 Project Definition 2 16 18 $50 $2,42(? 2 Project Man agement an d Meetings 8 100 4 112 $750 $15,030 3 Tech Studies 3. 1 Biological Resources 4 4 22 8 4 42 $100 $3,970 3.1.1 Bat Su rveys 0 $8,500 88,500 3.2 Air Qu ality Analysis 2 4 8 40 2 4 60 $100 $5,280 3. 3 Noise A nalysis 4 24 30 120 16 8 202 $300 $18,150 3. 4 H azardou s Waste ISA 2 4 40 4 4 54 $500 $5,010 3.5 Cu ltural Re sources 12 42 340 16 16 426 $600 $36,130 3.6 V isual Impact Analysis 4 16 40 40 8 108 $250 89,990 3. 7 Relocation Impact Report 1 2 8 8 4 23 $100 $2,115 3. 8 Community Impact Assessmen t 2 4 16 16 4 42 $100 $3,830 3. 9 Traffic Operations Analysis 2 10 36 10 4 62 $500 $5,970 3.10 Draft EA/IS 4 10 40 16 8 78 $100 $7,050 TOTAL I4OURS 47 236 38 702 136 68 1227 $11,950 $123,445 Billing Rate by Classific ation $185 $125 $105 $75 $85 $75 9/20/2004(P;1SAE2301Corresponden celbudget_Augmen t.5 Alt 2 xis) 132 • T.Y. Lin/McDaniel Structure Fee SR91 Project Report - RCTC Classification/Rate per Hour Task Project Mgr. Sr. Engineer Bridge Eng. Technician Total $160 $130 $95 $80 Advance Planning Studies 20 32 28 42 $ 13,380 Subtotal - Labor 20 32 28 42 $ 13,380 Direct Costs (Delivery, etc.) $ 500 TOTAL $ 13,880 Structures Included: • Jefferson St UC - Widen Madison Avenue UC - Widen • • COST ESTIMATE Geotech nicat Services (Pr oject Report & E nvironmental Docume nt) SR 91 fr om Mary Street to 7th Street - Exte nsio n to Adams A ve nue • Lask No . TASK DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL HOURS TOTALS TOTAL To ;;) ni CL u0i CL < i� . c rn ' o_ c' c,' u', E ` H l C] J! ;a -2 ca •° ' y in ' ii t o a a V) : « is N ' co ', U Q ' � CO a o- 5 Lu V) F N LLIW' .. U U Z: o Fes- o. CO z 0 w ci 1 — Hourly Rate (cost+Fixed Fees) $176 $145 $111 $90 $71 $80 $80 $53 TASK NAME Review Existing Data Site Recon. Data Reduction Geology 2 4 $711 $711 4 4 $804 $804 1 6 6 $1,196 $1,196 4 4 $804 $804 _ Engineering 2 12 $1,428 $1,aza Seismic 2 4 $711 $711 Draft Report 4 8 6 2 $2,009 $2,009 Final Report 1 4 4 2 $961 $961 Meeting & Project Admin 1 2 $281 $281 13 8 46 16 6 $8,905 $8,905 Notes: 134 AGENDA ITEM 6G • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-33-523 for the Construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station Parking Lot Improvement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-523 to Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. for the construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station parking lot improvement for the amount of $388,445.50 plus a contingency amount of $50,000, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $438,445.50; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Amend the Commuter Rail capital budget by $188,500 and Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June of 1993, the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station along with the Pedley Station, supported the initial commuter rail service from Riverside to Los Angeles via the Union Pacific Railway alignment. The Riverside -Downtown Station parking lot could accommodate approximately 350 vehicles. In October of 1995, additional commuter rail service from Riverside, to Irvine, to Los Angeles, via the BNSF Railway alignment, was started. To accommodate the additional commuters, expansion of the Riverside -Downtown station parking lot and the construction of two new stations, at La Sierra and West Corona, was required. A vacant property, adjacent to the Riverside -Downtown Station, between 14th Street and the existing parking lot on Vine Street, was available and proposed by RCTC staff as the site for the proposed Riverside -Downtown parking lot expansion. This vacant property was part of the Marketplace Specific Plan and was zoned for commercial use. At that time, the City of Riverside wanted to keep the option open to develop this property as a commercial site in the future, so the City would Agenda Item 6G 135 only grant RCTC a conditional use permit for a temporary parking facility, with a capacity of approximately 350 vehicles, for a period of five (5) years. In October of 1995, the Riverside -Downtown temporary parking lot was complete and opened for use. After the expiration of the initial conditional use permit (CU -008-945), RCTC staff initiated discussions with the City of Riverside to request a revision of the Conditional Use Permit, to allow the Riverside -Downtown temporary parking facility to remain in place and in use, for an additional five (5) years. In response to RCTC's request, the City of Riverside inquired if RCTC would consider revising the Conditional Use Permit for the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station (CU -008- 945) to convert the temporary parking facility into a permanent facility. In subsequent discussions, RCTC and the City agreed to revise the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station (CU -008-945) to convert the temporary parking facility into a permanent facility. As a condition of approval, the City has stipulated that the temporary parking facility must be upgraded to a similar condition as the adjacent permanent Riverside -Downtown parking lot. This would require that the temporary parking lot be reworked to add, curb and gutter, tree wells, landscaping, and restripe, within the following timelines: RCTC will develop and submit the first draft conceptual landscape plan to the City within nine (9) months after the revision of the CUP to a permanent facility is approved; within six (6) months after the conceptual landscape plan is approved by the City, RCTC will then proceed to develop and submit the final Plans, Specifications and cost Estimate (PS&E), for the new landscaping, to the City for approval; and after the City approves the PS&E, RCTC will advertise and commit to complete construction of the new landscaping within nine (9) months. On November 12, 2003, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-33-038 with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. for Final Design and Construction Support Services for the conversion of the temporary Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station parking area to a permanent facility and authorized staff to advertise the project to meet the timeline as agreed to with the City of Riverside. The Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station parking lot improvement project was advertised on November 15, 2004 and the bids were opened on December 16, 2004. Two (2) bids were received. A summary of the bids received are shown in Table A. • Agenda Item 6G 136 TABLE A • Award Agreement No. 05-33-523 for the Construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station Parking Lot Improvement Project. Bid Summary Firm (in order from Low bid to High bid) Bid Amount Amount Over Low Bid Final Engineers Estimate $300,000.00 1 Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. 1467 Circle City Drive Corona, Ca. 92879-1668 $388,455.50 2 International Pavement Solutions P.O. Box 10458 San Bernardino, Ca. 92423-0458 $444,565.50 $56,110.00 The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsible bidder and has submitted a responsive bid for the project. A summary of the review of the two (2) bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are detailed in Table B: TABLE B Check List Item Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. International Pavement Solutions, Inc. 1 Bid Letter Yes Yes 2 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est - w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 3 Bid Bond Yes Yes 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >50% Work Yes Yes 5 Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check Yes Yes 6 Safety Record Yes Yes 7 Non -Collusion Affidavit Yes Yes 8 Evidence of Insurance Yes Yes Agenda Item 6G 137 Table C summarizes the subcontractors listed by Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. for the Project, shown below. TABLE C Name Address Telephone License No. Type of Work Subcontract Dollar Amount Landmark Fence Co. 3964 Mission Blvd Montclair, Ca. 909-623- 9450 675212 Fencing $47,545.00 Buena Vista Landscape 601 Lakeview Ave. Placentia, Ca. 714-779- 1202 674472 Landscape & Irrigation $79,233.00 Roy Allen Slurry Seal 11922 Bloomfield Ave, Santa Fe Springs, Ca. 562-864- 3363 372798 Slurry Seal $18,900.00 Sure Stripe 23927 Corte Cajon, Murrieta, Ca. 909-696- 6776 522689 Striping & Wheel Stops $12,740.00 Table D (attached) summarizes the costs associated with the construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station Parking Lot Improvement Project, for the two (2) bids received. In a review of the two (2) bids received for the project it was readily apparent that both bids were significantly higher than the Final Engineer's Estimate by approximately 30% for Hillcrest Construction and 50% for International Pavement Solutions. Staff has investigated the reasoning behind this difference and has concluded that there are two main reasons: 1. The escalation in the cost of raw materials. Over the past year, the cost of raw materials has escalated drastically. The Final Engineer's Estimate tried to compensate for this escalation but price escalation is hard to accurately estimate. 2. The staging required of construction to assure that there is enough available parking at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station, at all times, during construction of the parking lot improvements. Today, there are approximately 825 available parking spaces at the Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station. For the past few months, staff has been keeping a daily count of the number a vacant parking spaces at the station after all boarding's have occurred in the morning. On average, there are approximately 75 vacant parking spaces available after all the morning Metrolink Trains have departed. Staff has required that the Contractor phase or stage his work to assure that there is always enough available parking at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. That means that the Contractor has to limit his work activities and not disturb more than 75 parking spaces at a time. This staging of the work is always hard to estimate. • Agenda Item 6G 138 • Staff has reviewed the lowest bid and found it to be within the range of the Final Engineer's Estimate taking into account the escalation and staging mentioned above. Based on staff and Legal Counsel's review of the bids received, it is recommended that the Commission award Agreement No. 05-33-523 for the construction of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station Parking Lot Improvement Project, to Hillcrest Contracting, Inc, for the amount of $388,445.50, plus a contingency amount of $50,000, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $438,445.50. The standard RCTC construction contract will be used, contingent upon RCTC Legal Counsel review. The budget currently reflects $250,000 of the $438,446 required. Therefore, a budget amendment in the amount of $188,500 is needed. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $188,500 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Western County Rail Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 221-33-81301 P4001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: vL.X€,/,,,/,.,`)tm Date: 01/05/2004 Attachment: Table "D" Agenda Item 6G 139 • TABL• • ITEM NO SPEC SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . EST. QUAN . Final E ngin eers Estimate Hillcrest C ontracting, Inc. International Pavement Sol utions UNIT PRICE ITEM T OTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 1 1505 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 25,000 .00 $25,000.00 $27,300 .00 $27,300.00 $20,000 .00 $20,000.00 2 1570 TR AFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 .00 $4,000.00 $4,000 .00 $4,000 .00 $4,000.00 3 1710 CLEAN-UP LS 1 $ 4,000 .00 $4,000.00 $3,300.00 $3,300 .00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 4 1710 CONSTRUCTION WATER LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $1,000.00 $580.00 $580.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 5 2050 DEMOLITION AND REMOVALS LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $20,000 .00 $30,400 .00 $30,400 .00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 6 2160 SAFETY AND SHORING LS 1 $ 2,000 .00 $2,000 .00 $580.00 $580 .00 $2,000.00 $2,000 .00 7 2200 EXCAVATION AND GRADING LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,200 .00 $20,200.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 8 2200 REMOVE AND RECOMPACT CY 100 $ 15 .00 $1,500.00 $55 .00 $5,500.00 $45.00 $4,500.00 9 2200 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $2,000 .00 $2,150.00 $2,150 .00 $2,500 .00 $2,500 .00 10 2513 AC PAVEMENT, 4" THICK, AND BERM S LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $25,000.00 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $31,700.00 $31,700 .00 11 2513 EMULSION - AGGREGATE SY 12600 $ 1.50 $18,900 .00 $1.73 $21,798.00 $1.89 $23,814 .00 12 2513 REMOVE AND REPLACE AC SF 1000 $ 5 .00 $5,000.00 $5.30 $5,300.00 $5.00 $5,000.00 13 2520 PCC CURB, 6" CF PER CITY STD 200, TYPE 2 LF 1985 $ 15.00 $29,775.00 $18.00 $35,730.00 $15.00 $29,775.00 14 2520 PCC CURB AND GUTTER, 6" CF PER LF 151 $ 15.00 $2,265 .00 $20.00 $3,020.00 $22.00 $3,322.00 15 2520 PCC CROSS GUTTER PER CITY STD 220 SF 92 $ 5.00 $460 .00 $8.60 $791.20 $10.00 $920 .00 16 2520 PCC CURB CHANNEL PER DETAIL LF 60 $ 20.00 $1,200 .00 $33.00 $1,980.00 $35.00 $2,100.00 17 2520 PCC STAIRWAY WITH HANDRAILS EA 1 $ 20,000.00 $20,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $8,000 .00 $8,000.00 18 2520 PCC WHEEL STOPS EA 151 $ 50.00 $7,550.00 $29.00 $4,379 .00 $30.00 $4,530.00 19 2520 PCC PAVEMENT, 12" THICK SF 40 $ 7.00 $280.00 $17.30 $692.00 $20.00 $800 .00 20 2520 PCC SIDEWALK, 4" THICK SF 641 $ 3. 00 $1,923.00 $5.30 $3,397.30 $4 .50 $2,884.50 Agenda Item 6G 140 TABLE D 21 2580 PAVEMENT STRIPING, MARKINGS LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,500 .00 $9,500 .00 $4,100 .00 $4,100.00 22 2810 IRRIGATION SYSTE M LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $25,000.00 $35,000 .00 $35,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 23 2900 LANDSCAPING LS 1 $ 40,000 .00 $40,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $65,700.00 $65,700.00 23A 2900 LANDSCAPE, 1 YEAR MAINTENANCE LS 1 $ 6,000.00 $6,000.00 $11,300.00 $11,300.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 24 5520 STEEL TUBE FENCE, 42"' HIGH LF 288 $ 40.00 $11,520 .00 $67.00 $19,296 .00 $80.00 $23,040.00 25 5520 STEEL TUBE FENCE, 60" HIGH LF 250 $ 60.00 $15,000.00 $97.00 $24,250.00 $140.00 $35,000 .00 26 16050 1" PVC UNDERGROUND LF 100 $ 5.00 $500.00 $16.50 $1,650 .00 $30.00 $3,000.00 26A 16050 1 1/2" PVC UNDERGROUND LF 100 $ 10 .00 $1,000.00 $17 .00 $1,700.00 $35.00 $3,500.00 27 5520 STEEL TUBE FENCE, 48"' HIGH LF 41 $ 50 .00 $2,050.00 $72.00 $2,952.00 $80.00 $3,280 .00 28 5520 ROLLING STEEL TUBE GATE, 48" HIGH LS 1 $ 1,000 .00 $1,000 .00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $3,500 .00 $3,500.00 29 NA RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 .00 $4,000 .00 $4,000 .00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Agenda I1110GIII $ 299,923.00 $388,445.50 $444,565.50 141 I AGENDA ITEM 6H • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Transit Policy Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Reserve Policy for Local Transportation Funds TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE* AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Establish a transit operators' reserve policy of 10% for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley apportionment areas; 2) Establish a transit operators' reserve policy of 10% for each of the transit operators (public bus and commuter rail) in the western Riverside County apportionment area; and, 3) Revise the Funding Disbursement Policy so that 100% of the operating funds are allocated and disbursed with two -twelfths of the 100% disbursed the first month and the remainder (ten -twelfths) disbursed over the next eleven months. *This item is scheduled to be reviewed by the Transit Policy Committee on January 6th. If there is a variance in the above recommendations, this item will be requested to be pulled from the Consent Calendar. This is forwarded to the Commission prior to the review of the Committee to meet the mail out and posting requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the October 18, 2004 Transit Policy Committee (TPC) meeting, staff recommended that a 10% reserve policy be established for each of the three apportionment areas. A reserve policy was recommended due to operating costs outpacing current year revenue. Much discussion followed regarding cash flow issues due to non -receipt of federal funding. It became apparent that additional discussion needed to take place and as a result, the TPC directed Commission staff to convene a staff to staff level meeting to further discuss the issue of operating reserves. Agenda Item 6H 142 In follow-up, a conference call and two meetings were held. Agreement on the proposed policy was quickly reached with staff from SunLine, the City of Blythe and the Commuter Rail Program. The development of a reserve policy in western Riverside County was not as easy due to the number of operators in the area. As a result, a subsequent meeting was held to further discuss cash flow issues. At the second meeting, consensus was reached among the municipal operators as follows: a. Ten (10%) reserve should be established for unforeseen cost increases; b. Reserves should be restricted to maintaining current service levels in the event of a revenue shortfall or unforeseen emergency; c. Reserves should not be for service enhancements; and, d. Each operator should have its' own reserve fund. The Riverside Transit Agency proposed that the reserve policy be established between 11 % and 17%. Recommendations were also made that reserves be available for infrastructure and service improvements as well as for capital purchases and included "triggers" for drawdown of reserves. Subsequent to the Transit Policy Committee, a letter was received from Jon Winningham, Chairman of RTA's Board, which concluded that RCTC "needs to determine the appropriate reserve level, with documented processes to access the reserve, for all transit operators". Process to Calculate 10% Reserve The amount of the required reserve for the fiscal year would be calculated as 10% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment balance after deductions for administration, planning, and SB 821 program funding. The unallocated reserve balance of 10% would be set aside before allocation to the three apportionment areas based on population. Attachment A is an illustration of the calculation using FY 2004-05 amounts. Elimination of 10% Withhold from Annual Allocation In order to implement the revised reserve policy, staff recommends that the Commission also revise the Funding Disbursement Policy adopted on February 13, 2002. Currently, 10% of the annual allocation for each operator is not disbursed until June after the Commission has determined that sufficient revenues have been received. Under the new reserve policy, this approach is no longer necessary as the 10% reserve can cover costs if revenue comes in lower than projected. • Agenda Item 6H 143 • • • Accordingly, staff recommends that 100% of the annual allocation be disbursed with two -twelfths in the first month and the remainder of the 100% over the next eleven months. Process to Access Reserve Funds Western Riverside County transit operators requested that RCTC implement some type of automatic trigger mechanism to allow them to tap into reserve funds. Staff recommends that operators access reserve funds by amending their SRTP through the established amendment process. Each request would be considered based on its own merit, and as a result, provide flexibility to the operators. All requests will be presented to the Commission for review. Attachments: 1) Riverside County LTF 2004-2005 Apportionment 2) RTA Letter Agenda Item 6H 144 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2004-2005 APPORTIONMENT (REVISED) Budget FY 2004-2005 Projection Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $5,490,333 Est. Receipts 58,580,960 TOTAL 64,071,293 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 675,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 1,757,429 Less: SCAG Planning 106,300 BALANCE 61,520,564 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,230,411 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 60,290,153 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 6,029,015 BALANCE AVAILABLE AFTER RESERVES $54,261,138 Current Policy: Population Revised Budget Population FY 2004-2005 % of Total Apportionment (no reserves) Westem 1,322,192 77.52% $46,739,038 Coachella Valley 355,287 20.83% 12,559,275 Palo Verde Valley 28,058 1.65% 991,841 1,705,537 100.00% $60,290,153 Westem County: Rail 22% $10,282,588 Transit 78% 36,456,449 Total $46,739,038 Proposed Policy: Population DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only Budget Population FY 2004-2005 % of Total Apportionment (after 10% reserves) Rail Transit 22% 78% Western 1,322,192 77.52% $42,065,134 $ 9,254,329 $ 32,810,804 Coachella Valley 355,287 20.83% 11,303,347 Palo Verde Valley 28,058 1.65% 892,657 1,705537 100.00% $54,261,138 Reserve Allocation: Westem Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Reserve NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change Rail Transit $ 4,673,904 $ 1,028,259 $ 3,645,645 1,255,927 $ 3,066,713 RTA 99,184 $ 100,842 Banning $ 105,395 Beaumont $ 153,735 Corona $ 218,960 Riverside $ 6,029,015 Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2003 70150 EH, TL • • December 13, 2004 Ms. Tanya Love Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 RE: Transit Operators' Reserve Policy 1111rmilnik ION Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Phone: (951) 565-5044 Fax: (951) 565-5045 fi-\ D DEC 16 2004 Dear Tanya: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RTA has been pleased to participate in the development of a reserve policy for the apportionment area of Western Riverside County. Representatives from both the RTA Board of Directors and staff participated in all policy development meetings and workshops. They were very productive and allowed for discussion and input of ideas and concepts from all stakeholders. Based on those meetings, RTA feels confident that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will develop a reserve policy that considers all the suggestions and concepts discussed to ensure continued transit operations in the event of a revenue disruption or capital acquisitions. Although I would have preferred to discuss this with the RTA Board of Directors' Budget and Finance Committee, I do understand RCTC's urgency to secure this policy. I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the discussion and trust RCTC staff will determine an appropriate reserve level, with documented processes to access the reserve, for all transit operators. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Larry Rubio at 951-565- 5022 or by e-mail lrubio(a,riversidetransit.com. Regards, 04 - Winningham Chairman of the Board of Directors JW/mh c/ RTA Board of Directors L. Rubio, RTA E. Haley, RCTC 146 R.23.7 AGENDA ITEM 61 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Advisory Committee Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the membership roster for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC) effective January 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides direction for administering both Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds; both fund types are used to support operating and capital costs for public transportation. Section 99238 of the TDA requires that the Commission have a Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee consisting of categorical memberships as follows: 1) One representative of a potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older; 2) One representative of a potential transit users who is handicapped; 3) Two representatives of the local social service providers for seniors, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 4) Two representatives of local social service providers for the handicapped, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 5) One representative of a local social service provider for persons of limited means; and, 6) Two representatives from the local consolidated transportation service agency, designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, if one exists, including one representative from an operator, if one exists. Agenda Item 61 147 Appointment terms to the CAC/SSTAC are staggered with members appointed to one, two, and three year terms. Appointments for Jim Collins, Peter Benavidez, Sherry Thibodeaux, Cindy Scheirer, Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable will expire in 2005. Staff contacted these members and all have indicated that they would like to have their appointments reconfirmed for an additional year. Attachment: CAC/SSTAC Membership Roster • Agenda Item 61 148 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER ROSTER Effective: January, 2005 Name/Area Represented 1 Categorical Membership 1 Term Date Qualifications Jim Collins Indio Potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older 2 Expires 1/07 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Peter Benavidez Riverside Potential transit user who is disabled 2 Expires 1/07 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Judy Nieburger Moreno Valley Social service provider for senior citizens/disabled 3 Expires 1/07 Past RCTC and Metrolink member Sherry Thibodeaux Riverside Social service provider for persons of limited means 1 Expires 1/06 Interested in transit issues. Works for the Community Access Center. Hosts support groups for women with disabilities and domestic violence cases. Cindy Scheirer Pedley Community member 2 Expires 1/07 Involved in community issues and has attended Transportation Now meetings Andrea Puga Corona Community member 1 Expires 1/06 Past member of RCTC, RTA and Metrolink Mike Pistilli Pass Area Transit Social service transportation provider for the disabled/ limited means 3 Expires 1/07 Works for the City of Beaumont transit service, participates in the Pass Area Transit Study Mary Venerable Perris Social service transportation provider for elderly 1 Expires 1/06 Involved in community issues and a member of Lake Elsinore Transportation Now SunLine Transit Agency Coachella Valley Consolidated Transportation Service Agency 3 Expires 1/07 SunLine Transit Agency staff Grant Bradshaw-RTA Western Riverside Consolidated Transportation Service Agency 3 Expires 1/07 Riverside Transit Agency staff AGENDA ITEM 6J • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreement No. 05-45-531 for Call Box Support Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-45-531 to Bernard J. Arroyo for Call Box Consultant services for a one-year period from January 3, 2005 through December 31, 2005 with four (4) one-year options; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County CaII Box program utilizes a consultant to assist staff with the operational analysis of the call box system, management information reports, as well as any special studies Commission staff may request during the year. TeleTran Tek Services (T-3), the current call box consultant, was awarded a five- year agreement in 1999 which has expired. Consequently, staff issued a Request for Quotations (RFQ) seeking proposals from interested firms or consultants to provide consulting services for one year with an option to renew the contract for four (4) additional one-year periods based upon RCTC's determination of satisfactory performance by the contractor or program needs that may change over time. Staff issued the RFQ on October 27, 2004 and proposals were due December 1. Only two proposals were received, one from the current contractor and one from Bernard Arroyo. The quotes received were as follows: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TeleTran Tek Services $33,216 $34,548 $35,559 $36,601 $37,674 Bernard Arroyo $24,986 $20,604 $17,585 $18,097 $18,625 Agenda Item 6J 150 As you may recall, in February 2004, the Commission adopted the Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan for the Riverside County Call Box program. The Plan recommended five improvements to the call box system including ADA enhancements for site accessibility, retrofit of all "B" and "C" sites to meet Caltrans' new design requirements, conversion to digital technology, increase spacing between call boxes to a minimum of 1/2 mile, and, if necessary, installation of 5' x 5' pedestrian pads. During the term of the contract, the contractor may be required to assist Commission staff in developing Request for Proposals and phasing plans to implement these recommendations along with the on -going operational analysis, management information reports, and any special studies that may be requested. An evaluation committee comprised of program managers from OCTA, SANBAG, and RCTC reviewed the proposals. The committee ranked Bernard Arroyo as the top proposer and recommend he be awarded the contract. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $24,986 Source of Funds: SAFE Fees Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 202-45-65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i.e 4,.2�m� Date: 12/21/04 • Agenda Item 6J 151 AGENDA ITEM 6K • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure "A" plan for the City of Palm Springs was approved by the Commission at its July 14, 2004 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Palm Springs is requesting to amend its FY 2005 Measure "A" plan to add one project, the annual SB 821 sidewalk on Ramon Road, in the amount of $20,500. The project was mistakenly omitted from the original submission and is being carried over from FY 2003-04. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Springs with Revised Schedule Agenda Item 6K 152 November 29, 2004 70204 City of Palm Springs Department of Public Works and Engineering 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 323-8253 • Fax: (760) 322-8360 • Web: www_ci_palm-springs.ca.us Mr. Jerry Rivera Measure "A" Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 -()IEC-FIIVE3 DEC 2 02004 -J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Re: FY 2005-09 Local Measure "A" Local Streets & Roads Program -REVISED Proposed City of Palm Springs Annual 5 -Year Local Measure "A" Plan (FY 2004/05-2008/2009) Dear Mr. Rivera: Enclosed, please find the revised Plan referenced above. We are requesting an increase in Measure A funds for our SB821 Sidewalk Program amount. This item was mistakenly not included on the "2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005" table. (It was Item #4 in our 2003/2004 Program). The addition and increase is to be funded with unexpended prior year revenues. Item Project Description Total Cost Meas "A" Funds 6. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk - Ramon Road $50,100 $20,500 The City respectfully requests that the Commission consider an amendment to the current Palm Springs Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Measure A Plan, with a net increase of $20,500 in Measure A Funds. Please replace this revised plan for the plan dated June 14, 2004, that was previously sent to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (760) 323-8253 extension 8732. Sincerely, David J. Barakian Director of Public Works/City Engineer DJB/clr Attachment: Revised -"FY 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005" Measure A Projects (replace page 1 of 1) xc: David H. Ready, City Manager Troy Butzlaff, Assistant City Manager Tom Kanarr, Director of Finance/Treasurer Nancy Klukan, Accounting Manager Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 153 X.29.15 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOC AL F UNDS PROG RAM A gen cy: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. F uller, Se nior Ci vil Engineer) Date: June 14, 2004 FY2005-2009, 5 - Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005) • ITEM N O. PROJECT NAM E/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEAS . "A" FUNDS 1, Amado Road, Calle Alv arado & Avenida Caballeros ( near Con y. Center) Street Improvements 175,000 175,000 2. Gene Autry Trail RR Bridge @ WW Wash Design Phase (NEPA Environmental) 2,481,000 61,000 3. Indian Canyon Driv e RR Bridge @ WW Wash Design Phase 2,000,000 141,000 4. Traffic Safety Projects Various Locations 40,000 40,000 5. N orth Indian Canyon Drive (Side Street Closures) Street Reconstruction 75,000 75,000 6. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project Install Sidewalks -Ramon Road 51,000 20,500 TOTAL 03/04 Contin ued to 04/05 $4,821,100 $512,500 Note: These are current RCTC approv ed FY2003/2004 Projects that need to be "continued" to FY 2004/2005 Page 1 of 1 154 AGENDA ITEM 6L • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Funding Agreement No. 05-25-536 with LACMTA, OCTA, SANBAG, VCTC, SCAG, and Caltrans for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-25-536 with LACMTA, OCTA, SANBAG, VCTC, SCAG, and Caltrans for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan in the amount of $125,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $125,000 of re -allocated LTF funds and increase the FY 2004-05 rail operating budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the September 8, 2004 Commission meeting, staff notified the Board of the joint submittal with OCTA, SANBAG, and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) of a State Planning and Research (SPR) grant application for a "Southern California Goods Movement Strategy Study." Initiated by OCTA, the intent is to have a LACMTA led effort to take a look at freight mobility issues (focusing on rail and truck), coordinating goods movement policies, and determining how to deal with some of the community, land use, and air quality impacts of goods movement. The total project is budgeted at $1,275,000 and the application requests $300,000 of SPR grant funding with the balance to be split among the Commissions. Agenda Item 6L 155 As a result of the joint application, the county transportation commissions (RCTC, OCTA, SANBAG, MTA, and VCTC) have joined together with SCAG and Caltrans (Districts representing Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties) to develop a goods movement action plan. The action plan will represent a regional framework for goods movement initiatives, and be developed collaboratively by the county transportation commissions, SCAG, Caltrans, councils of governments, the private sector (ports, railroads, trucking companies, shippers, etc.,) and other agencies involved in the movement of freight. The creation of a goods movement action plan is particularly important in today's financially constrained environment to minimize duplication of effort and ensure that agencies are not inadvertently working at cross purposes. The action plan must also identify ways to minimize the impacts of goods movement on nearby communities and the environment. The action plan has the following objectives: • Document existing freight movement systems and constraints; • Identify projected goods movement growth and trends, and possible private sector responses; • Identify optimal short-term and long-term infrastructure and operational strategies; • Identify private and public -sector roles in implementation, and funding sources; • Identify strategies to lessen community and environmental impacts (e.g. to mitigate congestion, rail crossing delay, land use, noise, air quality impacts); and, • Identify potential obstacles to implementation and needed public - private institutional arrangements. The results of this effort will contribute to an update of county transportation plans and the Regional Transportation Plan. Attached is notification from Business, Transportation, and Housing of the successful award of $300,000. As a result, the Commission is requested to provide $125,000 of local match for the Action Plan. SANBAG, MTA, and OCTA have already programmed their respective shares of funding. • Agenda Item 6L 156 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 04/05 Amount: $ 125,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 103-25-85101 P4008 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \r tbi,,,a,4,3tu,i, Date: 12/21/04 Attachment: Grant Approval Letter from Business, Transportation, & Housing Agenda Item 6L 157 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor aepartment of Alcoholic Beverage Control partment of Corporations partment of Financial Institutions Califomia Highway Patrol Califomia Housing Finance Agency Commerce & Economic Development Program Department of Housing & Community Development Department of Managed Health Care SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK Secretary Department of Motor Vehicles Office of the Patient Advocate Department of Real Estate Office of Real Estate Appraisers Stephen P. Teale Data Center Office of Traffic Safety Department of Transportation Office of Military and Aerospace Support BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY November 29, 2004 Mr. Mark A. Pisano, Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Dear r. Pisano: I am pleased to write to you on behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to inform you that the following applications for a California Department of Transportation (Department) Planning Grant have been selected for funding. With these grants, your agency will be a partner with the State of California in our efforts to. promote public participation in transportation planning to address our common goals of promoting mobility, equity, access, safety and sustainable communities in your area. Grant Type Partnership Planning 5313(b) Transit Planning 5313(b) Transit Planning 5313(b) Transit Planning 5313(b) Transit Planning 5313(b) Transit Planning Project Title Amount Southern California Goods $300,000 Movement Strategy Study Gold Line Corridor Study $114,207 Santa Paula Branch Corridor $166,667 Rail Study West Los Angeles Multimodal $300,000 Transfer Facility Site Study Rural Tribal Transit Assessment Study $78,824 Orange County Transit Planning $50,000 College Intern Program 980 9th Street, Suite 2450 • Sacramento, CA 95814-2719 • (916) 323-5400 • 1 (800) 924-2842 • Fax: (916) 323-5440 FLEX YOUR POWER! • BE ENERGY EFFICIENT! 158 Mr. Mark A. Pisano November 29, 2004 Page 2 • Please keep in mind the award of these federal grant funds is contingent on the resolution of "project management" fees charged by the Southern California Association of Governments on the six applications identified above. Department staff will be working with your staff to address this issue before the grant funds can be encumbered. If you have any immediate questions concerning these grants, please contact Mr. David Sosa of the Department's District 7 office at (213) 897-0409. Sincerely, SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK Secretary C: Arthur T. Leahy, OCTA Columba Quintero, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribe Peter De Haan, Ventura CTC Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, UCLA Urban Planning Department Rose Casey, District 7 Deputy District Director for Planning & Public Transportation William A Mosby, District 8 Deputy District Director for Planning 159 AGENDA ITEM 6M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of November averaged 4,896, up 321 (+7%) from the month of October. The line has averaged an overall increase of 13% from a year ago November 2003. November on -time performance averaged 89% inbound (+4% from October) and 83% outbound (+1% from October). There were 35 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of November, a 5 point decrease from the month of October. Union Pacific continues to be the primary cause of delays; Metrolink staff is working directly with the railroad to try to improve performance. The following were the primary causes: 16 Signals/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 11 1 7 45% 31% 3% 20% TOTAL 1C1(}'/0 Agenda Item 6M 160 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of November averaged 3,649, an increase of 2 more riders or a change of 0% from the month of October. The line has averaged a decrease of -5% from a year ago November 2003. November on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (+2% from October) and 91 % outbound (-2% from October). There were 22 delays greater than five minutes during the month of November. The primary causes were: 50% Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 11 5 2 4 23% 9% 18% TOTAL 91 Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of November averaged 1,862, down 31 riders or a decrease of 2%, from the month of October. The line has averaged an increase of 8% from a year ago November 2003. November on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (+4% from October) and 92% outbound (-2% from October). There were 13 delays greater than five minutes during the month of November, down 1 from October. The primary causes were: 5 Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 5 0 3 38% 38% 0% 24% TOTAL • • • Agenda Item 6M 161 • • • Metrolink Holiday Toy Train Events Even with some pretty unpleasant weather; wind, cold, and rain, RCTC did a fantastic job of increasing participation at the events. From estimates taken by Metrolink personnel, 2,240 people attended the four events, more than doubling last years numbers. Compared to 2003, the Downtown Riverside Station attendance grew from 300 to 310, the La Sierra Station from 125 to 680, the North Main Corona Station from 350 to 710, and the Pedley Station from 250 to 540 (in the Rain!!!). The fun Metrolink Train Show with Santa along with additional station activities of music, snow, and food made for a very enjoyable evening. The extensive advertising efforts really made a big difference and we are convinced that if we had decent weather that the turnout would have been even greater. In addition, the Firefighters Spark of Love Toy Drive had a terrific response. Last year some stations barely filled a single box, but this year we filled multiple vans and pickups at some of the stations. The RCTC school toy drive efforts were also very successful and brought in hundreds of toys. The following teachers and classes were winners of a Metrolink class field trip by donating more than 10 toys at one of the events. • Mrs. Tucker, 5th Grade Class, McAuliffe School, Alvord District • Aileen Carrillo, 2nd Grade, Collett Elementary, Alvord District • Mrs. Adams, 6th Grade, Arizona Middle School, Alvord District • Ms. Patty Huddleston, 4th Grade, Twinhill School, Alvord District • Jamey Bettencourt, 5th Grade, Sky Country School, Jurupa District • Margie Forward, 6th Grade, Sky Country School, Jurupa District • Lori Smith, K-3 Grades, Mission Bell School, Jurupa District • Amy Wunderlich, 5th Grade, Washington Elementary, Corona Norco District • Lisa Marie Miller, 7 -8th Grade Special Ed, Earhart Middle School, Riverside District Attachment: Metrolink Performance Summaries - November 2004 Agenda Item 6M 162 70212 SW/Sp METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES November 2004 pCE[NEEI j 13 DEC 212004 -) RIVERSIDE SINN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION lei METROLINK NN.41.4.8 • • 40,000 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 38,000 — 36,000 .L 34,000 -L 32,000 30,000 — 28,000 — 26,000 24,000 — 22,000 — 20,000 — 36,223 33,727 —� —++ Nov -03 Dec -03 Is IAA 37,806 •.• 37,399 • — a/ ■ 36,399 4- Jan -04 Feb -04 Mar -04 Apr -04 May -04 Jun -04 37,237 •... JuI-04 37,982 X7.088 • r 38,636 w Aug -04 Sep -04 Oct -04 Nov -04 Holida y AdJ—+^Unac Avg II 164 PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME * x 4X, ..w ay... �.• Nf I 1 �tr'h V.��lt��:"c}`T.-`�^.:'. ;r, :`h'. %`r H. ty -0�"' C "tr• dl �F'-;.5:[ /�(, ?,-4F:c:+..h`.%R'4":::,''.'?a�fi�'c �':,{;.iaxS�fi^?n, .•o-'r.4�$A'•.'�`.r,.�3:c.<}t.?w:;a�as,+r.,c: ..''`` �• y. °}�`,}w''trfi,:;.:._ yw.#t-rs-•7• � y2?'a:Ta; . s �r,`4' ;:?`-YF.:, , a'4•:.•�Lxsi:,. �.r,yw.xtf?�Si'-°-`�•o-^}+r.3-9.�3•S�r=j:'� • S yT.-w7.: • 51�.:Y}'�»`.tr.,:r ::.: Y'YM:�'r:Y:,'�' 3Y•"�:.]p��+ 8 Viw• :S. enhL:L::� OF JC S 0 2 8 0 0 CO m LL • C0 cr e METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) Nov 03 Dec 03 Jan 04 Feb 04 .. Y .:}• M ay 04 Jun 04 Jul 04 ®% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time Sep 04 Oct 04 Nov 04 4 166 fl T-1 kMnJlow % of Train Delays By Responsibility November 2004 Vandalism UPRR 3°% 15% TRK•Contr actor 17 % SIG -Contractor 12% Indudes Weekend Service L Mechanical 6% 5% SCRRA 13% BNSF 16% Improv (SCRRA) 0% OP Agree 4% Law-Enf polo 9% SIG -Contracto r 7°% Includes Weekend Service • SC % of Train Delays By Responsibility. 12 Month Period Ending November 2004 Law -tor 5% 0% OP Agre e 2% 5°% Vandalism 4% Mechanical 11% Other 14% SNSF 26% • • %67 • PERFORM ANCE CHARTS -B ACK-UP 1eiMETROIINK • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY P ASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED • ROUTE => Ventura County Antelope Valley San Bernardino Burbank Turns Riverside Orange County inl Empi OC Riv/Fulli LA TOTAL - SYSTE M °%o Change Vs Prior Mo Nov 03 4,568 5,466 10,007 649 4,317 5,641 3,858 1,717 36,223 1% Dec 03 3,516 5,230 9,983 549 4,321 5,031 3,467 1,630 33,727 -7% Jan 04 4,001 5,665 10,690 581 4,639 5,482 3,701 1,640 36,399 8% Feb 04 4,095 5,990 10,630 588 4,655 5,845 3,812 1,784 37,399 3% M ar 04 4,153 5,885 10,978 612 4,745 5,876 3,804 1,753 37,806 1% Apr04 4,107 6,262 11,046 599 4,639 5,959 3,713 1,774 38,099 1% May 04 3,970 6,180 11,213 645 4,745 5,966 3,696 1,783 38,198 0% Jun 04 3,868 6,258 11,013 645 4,629 5,876 3,619 1,862 37,770 -1% Jul 04 3,829 6,384 10,674 615 4,606 5,900 3,427 1,802 37,237 -1 % Aug 04 3,822 6,327 10,456 613 4,676 5,943 3,468 1,781 37,086 0% Sep 04 3,954 6,370 10,913 632 4,829 5,755 3,555 1,974 37,982 2% Oct 04 4,143 6,540 11,221 644 4,575 5,973 3,647 1,893 38,636 2% No v04 4,099 6,769 10,902 671 4,896 6,001 3,649 1,862 38,849 1% % Cha nge Nov 04 vs Oct 04 -1% 4% -3% 4% 7% 0% 0% -2 % 1% % Change Nov 04 vs Nov 03 -10% 24% 9% 3% 13% 6% -5% 8% 7% 7 169 Avp Rider Tau b end Mutli-Yr Li ne Gr aph AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW ROUT, ' ORANGEC OUNTY Weekday ' .. Saturday • Sunday o ' "• •. . M• • • VIAL. .1 'ti ' `" • TAL• .•• - A Y ". ChAngays-Marto►monthi We' �ieF i 8atur,day:. IHkday Sday" .; Amt rak Mara an Metr alink , Weekday .u-uyrwru- a. •SatuadaJ Sunt3ay Weekday Saturda y Suatiday , Nov -03 (4) 1,054 228 157 130 50 60 1,183 278 217 3% -15% -26% 119 - Dec -03 (5) 947 156 179 104 23 29 1,051 179 209 -11 % -36% -4 % 110 Jan -04 (s) 1,060 189 135 110 27 20 1,170 216 155 11% 21% -26 % 107 Feb 04 1,117 360 201 119 55 28 1,236 415 229 6% 92 % 48% 99 Mar 04 1,113 242 228 128 51 44 1,241 293 272 0% -29% 19% 94 Apr 04 1,132 186 225 133 48 48 1,265 234 273 2% -20% 0% 116 May 04 (7) 1,123 278 , 265 120 34 35 1,243 312 300 -2% 33% 10 % 104 Jun 04 1,112 269 220 119 47 26 1,231 316 246 -1% 1% -18% 90 Jul 04 (a) 1,110 247 230 128 37 26 1,238 284 256 1% -10% 4% 118 Aug 04 1,110 244 275 128 86 34 1,238 330 309 0% 16 % 21% 99 Sep -04(9) 1,106 210 199 135 21 25 1,241 231 224 0% -30 % -28% 93 Oct -04 (1o) 1,222 255 237 137 43 19 1,359 298 256 10% 29% 14% 85 Nov -04 (4) 1,246 296 270 152 27 26 1,398 323 296 3% 8% 16% 83 trio c hange Nov 04 vs Oct 04 2% 16% 14% 11% -37% 37% 3% 8% 16% % Change Nov 04 vs Nov 03 18% 30% 72% 17% -45% -57% 18% 16% 36% (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was o nly good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowe st ridership count for the re spective train, day of week and month. (4) Average of first 3 weeks of month only as black -cut in place for the Than ksgiving we ek (5) Average excluding 12/25 (6) Avera ge excluding January 1 (7) Average excluding M ay 31 (6) Average excluding July 5 (9) Average e xcluding Labor Day (10) Average excluding Columbus Day • • 170 -2% -30% pert summ-Rail 2 F.2004 • • 40,000 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE 38,000 - 36,000 34 000 >x ° »: mom :< :;: • ..»-.a». 32,000 30,000 28,000.. .... .. 26,000 - 24,000 Fy 04/05 22,000 X"—�------�K----------'����r ��_� 20,000 18,000 16,000 x `---xx 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 FY 03104 IFY 42103 01/02 FY 00101 Y 99/00 tito - FY 98/99 97198 ;K-------.�'-------------}(FY 96/97 FY 95/96 9 171 Ava Riders Table and M ull/-Yt Lino Gmnh San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Nov -03 Note: Sept Includes L. P. Coun ty Fair Riders) Avg Daily Riders 3500/ 3000- 2500 - 2000- 1500- 1000- 500 - Nov -03 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov -04 Note: Sunday Service Be gan 06/25/001 San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Pass enger Trips Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov -04 • • 10 172 • 0406w KanANww. Antelope Valley ine Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 3500 3000 - re 2500- 4 2000- 1500- < 1000- 500 - Nov03 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov -04 11 173 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMM ARY Percentage of trai ns Arrivi ng Within 5 Min utes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS luto' => • Ventura County in out Antilope Vallay — ii -1 Out . Ban Bernardino Iri out • • (Burbank Turns . ' in ' Out ! 'Riverside • - 'frt.' Out • Qrange County .. .In.' , Out ,: . Inland. mp/QO ::;So :. .NO.. 91 -L A • ' . In. . „., Out.: •Totial.ystem . in': • Out Total dov 03 100% 97% 96% 96% 94 % 92% 97% 98 % 92 % 96% 93% 89% 85% 90% 95% 84% 94% 93% 94% Dec03 98% 98% 98% 98% 98 % 99% 100% 98% 98% 93% 91% 90% 95% • 96 % 95% 89% 97 % 96 % 96% Jan 04 99% 96% 97% 95% 96% 96% 100% 99 % 98% 91 % 90% 97 % 91% 98% 90% 91% 96% 96% 96% Deb 04 99% 98% 97% 90% 96% 96% 98% 100% 93% 95 %, --91% 95% 93% 86% 93% 91% 95 % 94% 95% Mar 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 97% 97% 99 % 99% 95% 89% 95% 96% 88% 86% 97% 95% 96% 95% 96% Apr 04 98% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 100% 99% 89% 86% ' 96% 94% 92% 88% 89% 90 % 95% 94% 95% May 04 99% 97% 98% 98% 99% 98% 100% 100% 98% 95% 96 % 97% 95% 93% 96% 98% 98 % 97% 97% Jun 04 100% 98% 97% 95% 93% 93% 100% 100% 92 % 91% 95% 94 % 97% 94% 97 % 99 % 96% 95% 96 % Jul 04 100% 98% 96% 92% 90% 89% 100% 100% 96% 95% 94% 97% 90% 86% 94% 91 % 94 % 93% 94% kug04 99% 99% 98% 93% 91% 90% 97% 99% 93% 92% 91% 91% 95% 89% 92% 94% 94% 93 % 94% Sep 04 99% 98% 98% 95% 94% 91% 98% 100% 86% 89% 89% 91% 91% 87% 93% 89% 94% 93% 93% Oct 04 99% 98°,6 95% 93% 94% 89% 98% 98% 85% 82% 91% 94% 90 % 93% 90 % 94% 93% 92% 93 % Nov 04 96% 97% 94% 96% 96% 95% 98% 98% 89% 83% 90% 91% 92 % 91 % 94% 92 % 94% 94% 94 % ak Perio d Trains Arriving Within 5 Minute s of Scheduled Time Nov 04 iak Period Tr ains VCn 98% 97% Route 93% 93% SN-s Rou:e 94% 93% BUR Tun; :t.V Route OC Route 98% 98%I 88% 80% I 89% 91% Inl Emp.00 Ro ute 91 -LA Tot (:had 'nl Ou-ud Tot 5 sl 91% 89% 98% 83% 93 % 92% 92% adjustments hav e been made for relievable delays. rminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not Included in the on -time calculation. • • 12 174 • rnT.,.zu.+udu, • CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS N ovember 2004 PRI MARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIIV OC INL/OC 91 -LA T OTAL °% of TOT Signals/Detectors 3 2 5 0 12 12 3 0 37 20% Slow Orders/MOW 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 2% Track/Switch 3 3 13 2 4 7 5 5 42 22 % Dispatching 0 1 2 1 11 5 5 5 30 16% M echanical 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 12 6% Freight Train 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% Amtrak Train 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 8 4% M etroiink Meet/Turn 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 7% Vandalism 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 3% Passe nger(s) 0 1 2 0 4 2 1 0 10 5% SCRRA Hold Policy 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 2% Other 1 1 10 0 3 2 3 3 23 12 % TOTAL 13 26 38 4 35 37 22 _13 188 100 % Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 S unday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 175 a4a5CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DEL AYS BY DURATION November 2004 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 358 374 652 236 184 321 219 170 2514 82.4% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 27 100 116 12 31 35 23 6 350 11 .5% 6 MIN - 10 M IN 5 16 16 2 10 7 9 3 68 2.2% 11 MIN -20 MIN 4 8 13 1 17 16 8 5 72 2.4% 21 MIN -30 MIN 4 2 2 1 3 3 0 1 16 0.5% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 0 0 7 0 5 11 5 4 32 1.0% ANNULLED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 398 500 806 252 250 393 264 189 3052 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 40 126 154 16 66 72 45 19 538 17 .6% TRA INS DELAYED > 5 mir 13 26 38 4 35 37 22 13 188 6.2% • i 14 17a • 0405FREQ AGENDA ITEM 6N • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: RCTC Policy Prohibiting Employment of Ex -Officio, Board Members Non -Voting EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to amend the RCTC Personnel Policies and Procedures to allow the ex -officio member of RCTC to be eligible for employment following resignation from the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the next several years, it is probable that RCTC's senior staff will experience several retirements. In order to encourage the best available candidates to seek employment at RCTC, we should remove impediments to top level California Department of Transportation employees who may consider seeking employment at RCTC. In recent years several major transportation organizations, including the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), have hired individuals who have served as the Governor's ex -officio, non -voting representative. RCTC's policy is a local discretionary policy. It should be noted that the Governor's representative is non -voting, is ineligible to serve on the Executive Committee, does not serve on policy committees, and does not receive the Commissioner per diem or mileage and expense reimbursement. Attachment: Legal Counsel Memorandum Agenda Item 6N 177 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP • • • January 4, 2005 MEMORANDUM To: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM: LEGAL COUNSEL RE: RCTC POLICY PROHIBITING EMPLOYMENT OF EX OFFICIO, NONVOTING BOARD MEMBERS You requested that we research whether there are policies that prohibit an ex officio, nonvoting Commissioner from being employed by the Commission after resigning as a Commissioner. Section 3.10(2) of the RCTC Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual provides as follows: Members of the Commission Board are ineligible for employment with the Commission while serving on the Commission and for one year after their service on the Commission ends. You have asked if this section applies to ex officio, nonvoting members of the Commission. While the RCTC Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual does not provide a specific answer to this question, we believe that there is a strong argument that ex officio, nonvoting members are currently included in this prohibition. The Commission's Administrative Code, as well as the State law defining membership in the Commission, uses the term "member" to refer to both voting and nonvoting members. Further, in practice, the Commission routinely refers to its ex officio, nonvoting members as "members." Therefore, we believe that as currently drafted the prohibition in Section 3.10(2) applies to ex officio, nonvoting Commissioners. You have also asked if RCTC can amend this prohibition. If amended, the provision would allow a nonvoting, ex officio member to be employed by the Commission immediately after leaving his or her position as a Commissioner. We conclude that the Commission may amend its personnel policies to exempt ex officio, nonvoting members from the requirements of Section 3.10(2). State law does not provide any strict prohibition in this regard, so the Commission is free to establish its own local rule. In addition, as a matter of policy, the prohibition appears to be intended to restrict voting members from using their power and influence while on the Board to affect decisions which would benefit them upon leaving the Board. In this case, the ex officio, nonvoting member does not have the same power or influence as a voting member, and therefore, from a policy standpoint, it does not appear that the same considerations would apply. LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP In short, the Commission's Personnel Policies currently appear to prohibit RCTC from employing an ex officio, nonvoting member for 12 months after he or she leaves the Commission. However, this prohibition can be modified or eliminated by the Commission. mka Steven C. DeBaun • • • 179 AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-31-530 to Jacobs Civil Inc. to Provide Phase II of Engineering Services Related to the Mid County Parkway Project for the Preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-530, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-31-018 to Jacobs Civil Inc. for the Mid County Parkway Project to develop a Project Report and Environmental Document based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost for a not to exceed amount of $22,025,928; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute amendments for non cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a maximum contingency amount of $4,108,456 for a not to exceed total contract amount of $26,134,384; 3) Authorize the commitment of $8,303,000 of Western County Regional/CETAP TUMF funds and $17,831,384 of commercial paper funds to the contract, and authorize interfund borrowing, if necessary, to support the project's short term cash flow needs; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 11, 2003, the Commission approved acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document. Staff was directed to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on schedule, budget, and implementation. Agenda Item 7 180 At its September 3, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS), Project Report (PR) and a project level Environmental Document (ED) for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project. At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018 for a total amount of $5,030,501 for Phase I work to Jacobs Civil Inc., the selected firm for the development of the PSR/PDS and preliminary phases of the PR/ED for what is now called the Mid County Parkway (MCP Project). The Mid County Parkway project is a proposed new 32 mile transportation corridor to relieve traffic congestion between Corona and San Jacinto, roughly along or near Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway between 1-15 and SR 79. Over the past 12 months staff has been working with the consultant team and affected agencies to gather the required environmental and engineering data needed in Phase I of the project. Phase I included early development of time sensitive activities and the initial development of project alternatives necessary to scope the final work products to deliver the PR/ED for the project in Phase II . In order to engage and keep the communities involved and informed of the MCP Project, staff has held one round of public information meetings and one round of scoping meetings for a total of six public meetings. Information meetings were held on September 21, 22 and 23, 2004 and scoping meetings were held on December 7, 9 and 14, 2004. The consultant team and staff have achieved the major milestones set in Phase I: agreement on purpose and need, development of alignment alternatives to be studied in the environmental phase, circulation of the formal Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation (NOI/NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and the completion of the public scoping process. A description and graphic representation of the proposed alternative alignments is attached. Staff is recommending the Commission to proceed with Phase II of the project, which is development and completion of the PR/ED. Phase II is estimated to take approximately 3.5 years, from February 2005 through June 2008, and will get the project through completion of a Record of Decision from the Federal Highway Administration and receipt of a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Commission has been very fortunate to have the CETAP effort recognized under President Bush's Executive Order 13274 for Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Reviews. This recognition has resulted in excellent staff support from all involved federal agencies during the early phases of our project. The 3.5 years identified for Phase II recognizes a significantly accelerated schedule agreed to by all of our partner agencies. • • • Agenda Item 7 181 • • • The cost proposal from Jacobs Civil Inc. to deliver the PR/ED is attached for Commission review. The total cost for the scoped work is for a base amount of $22,025,928 and a contingency amount of $4,108,456, for a not to exceed amount of $26,134,384. This will bring the total project cost for Phase I and Phase II of the Mid County Parkway project to $31,164,885. Now funding of the contract needs to be determined. The current TUMF Nexus study provides for $133,021,000 of TUMF for the entire reach of the MCP (Ramona/Cajalco) corridor. Due to draw downs made by the Commission, $124,801,000 of TUMF capacity remains available to the MCP. Of this amount the Nexus justifies $7,600,000 for planning efforts, and $19,006,000 for engineering with the balance available for construction and right-of-way. If the position that 30% of engineering will be accomplished in the PA/ED phase of work then $5,702,000 of the $19,006,000 of engineering could be applied to Phase II work for a total of $13,302,000. Excluding the $30,501 in Federal streamlining funds and deducting the $5,000,000 of TUMF which was previously committed to the Phase I work effort, the balance of Nexus based TUMF funds remaining available to commit to Phase II planning and engineering is $8,302,000, which is $17,832,384 short of what is needed to commit the contract. The Commission has only one option, beyond seeking commitments from other sources and delaying action, to address this funding gap and it is to use commercial paper to fill the gap. A decision for the Commission in the future is how to retire the commercial paper when the extension of Measure "A" comes on line in 2009. In terms of the fund assets the Commission has to retire the commercial paper commitment to the MCP, both the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road are included in the extension of Measure "A" Western County Arterial program and are eligible to be considered for future funding. Additionally, the MCP is a CETAP Corridor and is eligible for Measure "A" Western County New Corridors funding. Per the voter approved Measure "A" extension the 30 -year program fund values are $300,000,000 for Regional Arterials and $370,000,000 for New Corridors. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. The agreed Cost and Scope to complete Phase II of the Project is attached. Agenda Item 7 182 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $8,302,000 Source of Funds: Western Riverside County TUMF (Regional Arterial/CETAP) up to $8,302,000 Thereafter, Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 210-72/73-81101 P2302 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ 4`4e Date: 01/05/05 Attachments: 1) MCP Cost 2) MCP Schedule 3) MCP Scope 4) MCP Routes Description and Proposed Alignments • • • Agenda Item 7 183 Task E stim at e: S ummary Total Project Date: 12.06 .04 ATTACHMENT 1 Total Project Allocated as C ontingency Jac obs CH2MHill DUDEK EPIC Ge ographies Kleinfelder LSA MMA MI G O'Reilly RBF VRPA Hours Cost Ho ur s Cost Hours C ost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost H ours C ost H ours Cost Hours C ost Hours Cost Ho urs Cost Hours Cost Hours C ost Hours Cost Task 1: Project Ma nageme nt 10 Projec t Man agement 1. 1ProjectM anageme nt 9,339 $1,373,300 6,860 $1,037,624 676 $93,121 31 $6,555 0 $0 116 $14,360 530 $84,518 0 $0 44 $4,612 12 $1,356 420 $75,040 650 $56,115 1.2 Pro ject Scheduling and Controls 6,520 $1,168,652 6,520 $1,168,652 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1.3 Projec t Meetings 9,306 $1,596,494 3,520 $592,457 1,420 $278,357 185 $39,615 387 $42,845 270 $41,483 2,130 $388,250 250 $47,871 24 $3,682 150 $17,515 520 $86,014 450 $58,406 Tota l - Task 1 25,165 $4,138,446 0 $0 16,900 $2,798,733 2,096, $371 ,478 216 $46,171 387 $42,845 0 $0 386 $55,843 2,660 $472,767 250 $47,871 68 $8,294 162 $18,871 940, $161,054 , 1,100 $114,521 Task 2: Pu blic Outreach 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Pro cess 2.1 Public Outre ach 1,338 $149,469 580 $63,856 0 $0 0 $0 48 $7,920 0 $0 0 $0 710 $77,694 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2.2 Intergo vernmental Co mmunications Contin gency 631 $61,363 631 $61,363 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 631 $61,363 0 $0 0 $0 2.3 Message Dev elo pment 60 $7,516 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 60 $7,516 0 $0 0 $0 2.4 Stakeholder Communications Contingency 842 $75,794 842 $75,794 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 842 $75,794 0 $0 0 $0 2.5 Media Relations 446 $36,878 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 446 $36 ,878 0 $0 0 $0 2.6 Public Informational M eetings (3 Total) 2,696 $348,216 910 $127,889 200 $26 ,906 36 $4,930 170 $18,198 128 $17,936 48 $8,808 54 $8,285 150 $18,080 820 $93,607 180 $23,576 2.7 Draft EIS/EIR Hearings 1,534 $192,958 510 $65,594 200 $26 ,906 109 $8,573 78 $8,998 128 $17,936 0 80 54 $8,285 147 $17,628 128 $14,545 180 $24,492 To tal-Task2 7,547 $872,195 1,473 $137,157 2,000 $257,338 400 $53,813 0 $0 145 $13,503 296 $35,116 0 $0 2561 $35,872 48 $8,808 818 $94,265 2,276 $217,259 948 $108,152 360 $48,068 Task 3.0 Surve y / Right -of -En try (ROE) / Right -o f - Way 3.0 Surv ey, ROE, ROW 3.1 Surve y and M apping Partial Con tin gen cy 932 $149,299 404 $65,608 120 $19,625 0 $0 0 $0 812 $129,674 3.2 ROE Completion 992 $108,757 120 $19,625 764 $74,558 108 $14,573 0 $0 3.3 Ea rly RO W Studies 2,666 $218,171 100 $10,566 2,266 $178,400 300 $29,205 0 $0 3.4 Prepare Draft Relocation Impact Repo rt 1,012 $92,616 40 $3,759 812 $70,154 160 $18,703 0 $0 3.5 Prepa re RO W Data She ets 1,714 $150,268 140 $19,669 1,274 $101,394 300 $29,205 0 $0 3.6 Property Acquisition and Displa cement Contingen cy 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total - Task 3 7,316 $719,111 404 $65,608 520 $73,244 0 $0 0 $0 5,116 $424,507 0 $0 0 $0 868 $91 ,686 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 812 $129,674 0 $0 Task 4 Environ men tal Se rv ices 4.0 Environme nta l Se rv ice s 4.1 Complete Scoping Process 428 $62,215 160 $26,933 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 268 $35,282 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4. 2 Draft Technic al Studie s 24,733 $2,436,168 980 $158,000 400 $61,840 2,525 $346,503 192 $20,335 19,758 $1,757,905 0 $0 316 $38,392 562 $53,194 4.3 Rev ised Technical Studies Dele ted 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4.4 Final Technic al Studies P artia l Contingency 22,294 $1,993,655 5,400 $470,112 360 $58,477 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 21,550 $1,894,785 0 $0 0 $0 384 $40,393 3 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 4,357 $527,130 720 $110,279 0 $0 0 $0 77 $8,781 3,440 $391,642 0 $0 0 120 $16,429 Prepare Draft EIS/EIR 1,244 $163,276 200 $42,299 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 924 $104,548 0 $0 0 _$0 $0 120 $16,429 4.7 Response to Co mments 2,188 $265,452 440 $63,233 0 $0 0 $0 40 $3,910 1,560 $174,876 40 $7,021 60 $9,491 48 $6,921 4.8 Draft Final ElS/EIR 1,528 $188,087 400 $61,632 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1,080 $119,534 0 $0 0 $0 48 $6,921 4.9 Final ElS/EIR 1,280 $159,125 320 $49,031 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 960 $110,094 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4. 10 Prepare Reco rd of Decision 396 $48,759 176 $25,159 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 220 $23,600 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4.11 HCP Amends.& M SHCP Consist. Determin Partial Con tingency 3,880 $570,921 1,525 $226,022 580 $81,877 0 $0 2,940 $430,044 0 $0 360 $59,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 To tal - Task 4 62,328 $6,414,788 6,925 $696,134 4,336 $676,920 400 $61,840 5,465 $776,548 309 $33,025 0 $0 0 $0 50,120 $4,671,266 40 $7,021 0 $0 0 $0 376 $47,883 1,282 $140,286 Task 5.0 Traffic Engineering 5.0 Traffic En gineering 5. 1 De taile d Traffic Fo recasts 3,297 $381,632 72 $10,975 0 $0 1,017 $150,831 2,208 $219,826 5.2 Traffic Technical Report 5,368 $547,434 200 $33,820 56 $9,499 265 $41,201 4,847 $462,915 5. 3 Pro ject Sta ging - 2020 A nalysis 5,047 $620,477 124 $20,961 16 $2,714 2,135 $312,372 2 ,772 $284,430 5.4 Traffic Simulation Con tin gency 2,804 $275,580 2,804 $275,581 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2,804 $275,580 5. 5 Co ordination With RC/OC 602 $90,850 200 $34,486 0 $0 106 $18,267 296 $38,097 To tal - Tasks 17,118 $1,915,973 2,804 $275,581 596 $100,243 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 72 $12,213 3,523 $522,671 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12,927 $1,280,847 Task 6 Engineering 6.0 En gineerin g 6.1 Preliminary Enginee ring 15,136 $1,890,058 6,468 $794,412 3,092 $437,942 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 5,352 $629,029 224 $28,675 6.2 Value Analysis 1,264 $192,831 364 $54,109 360 $57,190 0 $0 0 $0 80 $16,520 100 $17,796 360 $47,216 6. 3 En ginee ring Tec hnical Studie s/Re po rts 30,157 $3,844,927 15,860 $1,979,076 8,925 $1,234,806 0 $0 0 $0 108 $14,337 5,136 $599,191 128 $17,518 6.4 Preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation 3,130 $341,903 104 $17,320 0 $0 100 $11,342 2,806 $302,149 120 $11,092 0 $0 0 $0 6.5 Project Repo rt 4,644 $596,368 3,920 $491,976 200 $34,260 200 $22,685 0 $0 64 $6,844 200 $32,626 60 $7,977 6. 6 New Conn.Rpt.(NCR)/M odified Access Re port (MAR) 3,186 $400,674 1,700 $185,834 1,440 $209,532 0 $0 0 $0 32 $3,422 0 $0 14 $1,887 6. 7 G AD DRAWING S Co ntin gency 23,380 $2,895,116 23,380 $2,895,116 13,720 $1,559,038 9,660 $1,336,078 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total - Task 6 80,897 $10,161,877 23,380 $2,895,116 42,136 $5,081,765 23,677 $3,309,806 0 $0 300 $34,027 0 $0 2,806 $302,149 404 $52,215 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10,788 $1,278,643 786 $103,272 Task 7: GIS Data Base Serv ices 7. 0 GIS Data Base Services 7.1 Setup,Developmen t & Maintenance, Library & Distribution 680 $87,777 280 $36,999 400 $50,778 7.2 Publish Data Base/Alignme nt Laye r/Data Standards 180 $23,431 0 $0 180 $23,431 7.3 Data Nee ds Ass essment/Acquisitio n and Review/Maintain 260 $28,474 0 $0 260 $28,474 7.4 Analysis Utilizing the GIS System 720 $78,540 0 $0 720 $78,540 5G ene ra teM aps/Tables/Reports/Graphics 1,260 $144,180 400 $56,624 860 $87,556 Data Archive/Documentation/De livery/Training 160 $17,677 0 $0 160 $17,677 otal- Task 7 3,260 $380,079 0 $0 680 $93,622 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2,580 $286,456 0 $0 To tal Engineering 203,631 $24,602,468 $4,069,596 67,168 $9,081,865 26,573 $3,796,936 5,681 $622,718 6,257 $547,908 296 $35,116 3,192 $357,991 54,380 $5,336,019 3,861 $586,370 886 $102,559 2,438 $236,130 16,444 $2,011,862 16,455 $1,686,995 ODCs $1,531,916 $38,860 $394,048 $38,472 $37,400 $74,899 $173,200 $232,493 $384,050 $12,155 $4,150 $11,000 $109,550 860,500 Co ntract Value $26,134,384 $4,108,456 $9,475,913 $3,835,408 $860,118 $622,806 $208,316 $590,484 $5,720,069 $598,525 $106,709 $247,130 $2,121,412 $1,747,495 $26,134,384 Prepared by Jaco bs Civil, Inc. 12/16/2004 Page 1 Activity ID Activity Description 2135 Purpose and Need/404 Project Purpose 2235 HCP/MSHCP/SAMP Coordination 2110 Prelim. Engineering & Traffic Analysis 2120 Public Outreach Meetings 01JULO3A 01 NOVO3A 12JAN04A 21SEPO4A 31JANO4A 28FEB05 26NOVO4 23SEPO4A Orig Dur 215* 486 * 320 3 2160 Prepare/Publish NOI/NOP and Scoping Meetings 28SEPO4A 14DECO4 78* I IR ID PR D evelopdCtrculabo 2546 Dev/Concur Project Alternatives (PR/DEIS/DEIR) 2586 Dev/Concur Eval Criteria for Alts Analysis 2175 Environmental Analysis/Draft Technical Studies 2180 Draft Jurisdictional Delineation of Waters 2225 Develop MAR (M odified Access Report) 2226 Develop Draft GDs 2485 MSHCP/HCP/EI Sobrante Analysis and 2205 Corps/CDFG Verifies Jurisd. Delineat.of Waters 2470 Review Draft Technical Studies 2220 Prepare Final Technical Studies 2341 Preliminary Admin Draft Project Report 2222 Revisit Concept of Preferred Alt. in DEIS/DEIR 2236 M AR Preliminary Acceptance 2240 Prepare Draft EIR/EIS (Admin. Draft) 2495 Review & Approve DEIS/DEIR 2505 Draft EIR/EIS and Public Hearings EI IPR Deve lo pat tl, 2480 Response To Comments 2490 Preliminary Agreement on Preferred Alternative 2340 Prepare Biological Assessment 2390 FWS/FHWA Consultation -Section 7 2345 Engineering - Final Project Report Prepare Final EIR/EIS 2500 FEIS/FEIR Approval,Circulate/404 Permit Approval Drawings( 2405 Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) 2420 Obtain Sec.401 Certification from RWQCB 2425 Corps Permit Decision © Primavera Systems, Inc. 12JULO4A 10AU GO4A 17DECO4 17DECO4 01 MAR05 01 MAR05 01 MAR05 01 NOV05 * 17DECO5 31JANO6 01FEB06 16FEB06 01 MAR06 02M AR06 02JUNO6 03MAR05 03MAR05 16DECO5 15JUNO5 31AUGO5 31AUGO5 07SEPO7 28FEB06 30JANO6 01 MAR06 31 MAY06 17MAR06 30MAR06 01JUNO6 11SEPO6 120 45 * 30 12SEPO6 10NOV06 60 11 NOV06 10FEB07 12MAR07 26APR07 01JUL07 20JUL07 19AUGO7 09FEB07 91 11 MAR07 25APR07 07SEPO7 17SEPO7 79 17SEPO7 60 16DECO7 120 13NOV06 170CT07 243* 180CT07 15JANO8 17DECO7 14FEB08 15FEB08 15APRO8 14APRO8 60 13JUNO8 60 ATTrFiMENT 2 2004 2005 20'' 2007 '8 u111i111u1i11.111111•1u11111111 �111�1�11�1�11� Purp ose and CETAP Mid Coun ty Parkway Streamline Summa ry Preli eed/404 Project Purp ose HCP/MSHCP/SAM P Coordination Prelim . Engi neeri ng & Traffic Analysis blic Outreach Meetings 2009 Prepare/P ubli sh NOI/ NOP and Scoping Meetings De v/Concur Projeci Alternatives (PR/DEIS/DEIR) Dev/Concur Eval Criteria for Alts A nalysis E nvironme ntal A nalysi s/Draft Technical Studie s Draft J urisdictio nal Deli ne ati on of Waters Develop MAR (Modified Acce ss Report) Develop Draft GDs MSHCP/HCP/E1 Sobrante Analysis C orps/CDFG Verifies Jurisd. Delineat.of Waters Review Draft Technical Studies Prepare Final Tech nical Studies Preliminary Admin Draft Project Report Re visit Concept of Preferred Alt . in DEIS/DEIR MAR Preliminary Acceptance =Prepare Draft EIR/EIS (Admi n. Draft) ®Review & Appro ve DEIS/DEIR MODraft EIR/EIS a nd P ublic Hearings MN Response To Comments i nary Agreement on Preferred Alternative Prepare Biological Assessme nt WILMFWS/FHWA Cons ultation -Sectio n FEISIFEIR Appr ov al,Circulate/404 Perm: Geometric Appr oval Dr awing s (G AD) Engineering - Fi nal Project Report Prepare Final EI R/EIS FHWA ROD =Corps ROD Obtain Sec.401 Certification from RWQCB„;'F C orps Permit Decisi on® Date 09NOVO4 Revision Checked Approved • • MID COUN PART WAY PROJECT T SCOPE OF SERVICES / MANHOUR FEE ESTIMATE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PHASE 2 SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING DECEMBER 15, 2004 186 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH 3.0 SURVEY / RIGHT OF ENTRY / RIGHT OF WAY 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 5.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 6.0 ENGINEERING 7.0 GIS DATA BASE SERVICES BUDGET SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 1 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Project Management This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT) leadership, progress monitoring, and maintenance of project files from February 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008. Jacobs Civil Engineering (Jacobs) will supervise, coordinate, monitor, and review the project report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for conformance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local agency standards, policies, and procedures. Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project. This task will also include coordination and preparation of several documents anticipated to be required by Caltrans based on the Final Project Report and Environmental Document. This task also incorporates the management and project integration required for each of the subconsultants on this very large and complicated project. The consultant will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project. The job -specific QA/QC plan used for Phase 1 will be updated for the project, which includes the type and timing of checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures. These procedures apply to all team members and will be regularly audited by our designated QA/QC manager to ensure compliance. All documents and papers for external use will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. A technical editor will be used for all external documents. Jacobs will complete the QA/QC plan no later than one month after Notice to Proceed. The purpose of the document is to verify that: • All environmental and design attributes meet established industry or agency standards and comply with all applicable jurisdictional codes and requirements; • Multidisciplinary data acquisition and design efforts are coordinated and addressed; and 1 • Design is sufficiently complete to produce a reliable cost estimate for the purposes of project funding and supporting the assessments in the Draft EIS/EIR. 1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate project milestones in the critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded for the team. The schedule will be updated bimonthly or more frequently as required, and a variance analysis will be provided in our monthly report. Primavera Scheduling Software, tied into the Jacobs Accounting System, will be used for this task. Jacobs will provide the Project Controls for this project to ensure proper financial controls to the project. Earned value will be used along with schedule updates to maintain project budget and schedule. 1.3 Project Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend a number of meetings as specified below: Project Development Team (PDT) The PDT and Jacobs will meet monthly. These progress meetings will be used to coordinate the work effort and resolve problems and will be conducted by the Consultant. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others, including Caltrans, Riverside County, and the affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside and San Jacinto) as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all project team members as appropriate. The meetings will also review the following: 1. Activities completed since the last meeting 2. Problems encountered 3. Anticipated strategic problems and possible solutions 4. Information or items required from other cities or the agencies 5. Schedule "look -ahead" discussion Small Working Group (SWG) Meetings Small Working Group meetings will continued to be scheduled quarterly for the SWG, including representatives of local government and private sector agencies 2 y� t �OJ4ff7� I `'jnn":ission along the corridor, along with the FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Riverside County, and RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre -meeting with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting. Trend Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the monthly "Trend" meetings to discuss strategic technical issues, scope of services, schedule, cost, and other issues as required for coordination. County — RCTC Development Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend County development meetings monthly to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, developer tracts, etc., with RCTC, Riverside County, and developers as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication between the County, developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to the alignment. Developer Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend developer meetings estimated as occurring approximately two times per month to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, development tracts, etc., with RCTC, the County, and specific developers as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication between the developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to both throughout the Phase 2 schedule. Caltrans Monthly Workshop Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend monthly Caltrans workshop meetings to review and resolve engineering issues, share information, seek input, provide interim reviews of data, etc. Internal Team Meetings The Jacobs Team will run and attend semi-monthly internal team meetings to develop, discuss, review, and implement task assignments and coordinate tasks. Other Agency Meetings Other agency meetings include anticipated meetings with federal, State, and local agencies. These include coordination and support for the environmental streamlining 3 process, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) integration process, Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) development, and coordination between the Orange County/Riverside County Major ►nvestment Study (MIS) and SR -79 realignment projects. These agency meetings are anticipated as an average of one per month. Assumption: This scope of services covers the period of February 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008. 4 • • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 2 — PUBLIC OUTREACH MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH 2.1 Support for Public Meetings Attend two team meetings per month for five months around the time of each of two rounds of public meetings; attend two trend meetings before each round of public meetings. Provide support materials in the form of maps, handouts and powerpoints for meetings with stakeholders. Assumption: 24 meetings each for one person each from GEO, MIG, and OPR. CONTIGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 2.2 Intergovernmental Communications 2.2.1 Second round of route tours (OPR, JE) Tour MCP route with RCTC commissioners, Supervisors, Mayors, and City Council members, providing updated alignment information and addressing key issues. Assumption: 35 tours 2.2.2 Elected official briefings (RCTC, JE, OPR) Conduct targeted briefings with key elected officials to address key project issues and provide information on MCP timeline. Assumption: 20 briefings Products for all 2.2 tasks: • Tour tracking/key issues matrix document (updated throughout) • Tour script • Briefing script • Updated project fact sheet • Ongoing coordination of tours and briefings • Attendance at tours and briefings 1 2.3 Message Development 2.3.1 Key Messages (OPR) Update key message document to reflect new project issues (environmental documents, project design, final route selection) Product: • Updated message document CONTIGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 2.4 Stakeholder Communications 2.4.1 Opinion leader route tours (OPR, JE) Tour MCP route with key Western Riverside County opinion leaders to raise awareness of project and measure community concerns. Assumption: 20 tours 2.4.2 StakeholderlOpinion Leader briefings (RCTC, OPR, JE) Meet with key stakeholder groups (i.e., School Districts, Homeowners Associations, Chambers of Commerce) to address key project issues and provide timeline updates. Assumption: 25 briefings 2.4.3 Monitor stakeholder web postings (OPR) Monitor web posting of key stakeholder groups to measure community concerns and issues regarding the MCP. Assumption: Monitor weekly and provide written updates to RCTC and JE, as needed 2.4.4 Attend stakeholder group meetings (OPR) Attend meetings of key stakeholder groups to measure community concerns and issues regarding the MCP. Assumption: Attend one meeting per quarter. Products for all 2.4 tasks: 2 • 193 • • • Stakeholderlcommunity leader briefing target list • Tour tracking/key issues matrix document (updated throughout) • Opinion leader tour script • Stakeholder briefing script • Ongoing coordination of tours and briefings • Attendance at tours and briefings • Monthly update memos on stakeholder group web postings referencing MCP. • Quarterly update memos on stakeholder group meetings where MCP is discussed 2.5 Media Relations 2.5.1 Media calendar (OPR, JE, RCTC) Develop a calendar of key project milestones at which media coverage will be sought and/or must be addressed. 2.5.2 Media briefings (OPR, RCTC) Conduct briefings with local and regional transportation reporters prior to public meetings, release of Draft EIS/EIR, announcement of locally preferred alternative, and other project milestones. Assumption: 12 briefings 2.5.3 Media Kit (OPR, JE) Develop an MCP media kit for distribution to local and regional transportation reporters, with draft and pitch media releases timed to project milestones and wins. Assumption: 12 media releases 2.5.4 Opinion -Editorials (RCTC, OPR, JE) Draft Op -Editorials to communicate key project messages, coinciding with critical project milestones (i.e., locally -preferred alternative announcement, Draft EIS/EIR), signed by RCTC leadership, city leaders, and/or community leaders. Assumption: 5 Op -Editorials Products for all 2.5 tasks: • Media calendar document 3 • Media briefing, script/talking points, and a question -and -answer (Q&A) document • Key issue media talking points (i.e., Perris route, Lake Mathews route, right- of-way/legal issues) • Media briefing rehearsals (3) • Media releases (12) • Op -Editorials (5) • Media kit o Media fact sheet o Media Q&A o Project map/parkway renderings o Project timeline o Relevant news clips 2.6 Public Informational Meetings (3 Total) Assumptions: One round of meetings at three locations; one newsletter, including mailing 2.6.1 Support (ALL) Review and provide comments on display materials, newsletters, and draft PowerPoint presentations. Attend public informational meetings. 2.6.2 Communications (GEO, OPR) Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft a question - and -answer (Q&A) document to help RCTC spokesperson prepare for public questions during meeting. 2.6.3 Logistical and Public Information Support (GEO) Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to three informational meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation, and advertising; place advertising. 2.6.4 Hold Meetings (MIG) Design meeting formats to convey and gather input at this stage of the process. For each meeting, create handouts and facilitate and graphically record the meeting. Prepare Excel lists of attendees and prepare 3-5 page summaries of facilitated discussion, including breakout group flipchart transcriptions as applicable. Prepare 4 • 195 • • • 11 x 17 camera-ready photographic reproductions of one wall graphic for each meeting for posting on the Web site and reproduction by RCTC. 2.6.5 Web site (GEO, RBF) Update Web site for public meeting plus monthly postings for 38 months. Products for all 2.6 tasks: • Talking points document • Q&A document products • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Meeting exhibits • Newsletters • Direct mailing • PowerPoint • Advertising in newspapers • Meeting design • Meeting handouts, directional signs, sign -in sheets • Meeting summary • Meeting wall graphic reproduction in electronic format • Meeting attendance list in Excel format • Web site update 2.7 Draft EIS/EIR Hearings Assumption: One round of meetings at three locations 2.7.1 Support (ALL) Review and provide comments to display materials, newsletters, and draft PowerPoint presentations. Attend hearings. 2.7.2 Communications (GEO, OPR) Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft Q&A document to help RCTC spokesperson prepare for public questions during meeting. 2.7.3 Logistical and Public Information Support (GEO) 5 Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to 3 informational meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation, and advertising; place advertising. 2.7.4 Hold Meetings (MIG) Design meeting formats to convey and gather input at this stage of the process. For each meeting, create handouts and facilitate and graphically record the meeting. Prepare Excel lists of attendees and prepare 3-5 page summaries of facilitated discussion, including breakout group flipchart transcriptions as applicable. Prepare 11 x 17 camera-ready photographic reproductions of one wall graphic for each meeting for posting on the Web site and reproduction by RCTC. Products for all 2.7 tasks: • Talking points document • Q&A document products • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Meeting exhibits • Newsletters • Direct mailing • PowerPoint • Advertising in newspapers • Meeting design • Meeting handouts, directional signs, sign -in sheets • Meeting summary • Meeting wall graphic reproduction in electronic format • Meeting attendance list in Excel format • Web site update 6 • 197 • • • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 3 — SURVEY, RIGHT -OF -ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 3.0 SURVEY, RIGHT -OF -ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) 3.1 Survey and Mapping 3.1.1 Record Data Search Consultant shall conduct records research with Caltrans, MWD, and the County of Riverside to assemble record maps, field notes, and other survey records within the project limits. Record data will be reviewed and catalogued for future reference. 3.1.2 Additional Topography and Aerial Photography The consultant will provide surveying and mapping services for the additional studies along the 1-15 from El Cerrito to SR -91 and from Weirick to Temescal Canyon. All work will be completed in conformance with Caltrans standards and specifications. For this corridor along the 1-15 from El Cerrito to SR-91and from Weirick to Temescal Canyon our mapping needs to be ortho-rectified requiring ground control tied to the panel points on the ground with both coordinates and elevation. 1:500 ortho-rectified photography with a digital elevation model suitable for 1/2 meter contour intervals will be provided. The engineering team will provide a boundary on a strip map that describes the limits of the survey. Product: • Flight layout with control schematic. • One set of 9"x9" contact prints for each flight. • DTM (Mass points & breaklines) in Microstation V8 and AutoCAD formats. • Topographic & Planimetric mapping in Microstation V8 and AutoCAD 2000 formats. • Clipped Inroads DTM surfaces/ • Digital Orthophotography (Rectified Photo) in .TIF, .HMR, and .COT formats. • Encroachment permits will be obtained so that all survey monumentation required for aerial surveys can be established. All surveys establishing control will adhere to current Caltrans Standards. 3.1.3 Geotechnical Boring Location Field Survey i 198 Consultant shall conduct field surveys to locate all of the Geotechnical borings for soil exploration by GPS survey. There are approximately 80 borings proposed by the Geotechnical team for this phase of the project. Product: Microstation CADD drawing with the coordinates and elevations of each boring. CONTIGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 3.1.4 Field Surveys Consultant shall conduct field surveys as requested by the Engineering Team. This shall include up to 25 days of field surveys with a 2 -man crew for any additional information the Engineering Team will need during this phase of the project. Encroachment permits will be obtained. All surveys establishing control will adhere to current Caltrans standards. 3.2 Right -of -Entry (ROE) Completion ROE Permits for the purpose of performing environmental surveys will be conducted on those parcels identified as necessary to achieve the goals of this phase of work. Ongoing database support and coordination for tracking ROE permit parcels for environmental and legal. Phone support for owner contacts after legal notices have been sent. Update database for ownership changes, voluntary signing, access limitations and court ordered ROE's. Obtain additional ROE permits as necessary that have been identified by environmental or that have had ownership changes. This task includes ongoing public agency rights -of -entry renewal and ongoing litigation support. Assumption: Approximately 1,500 parcels in database Products: Signed ROE for access to parcels needed for environmental studies and database tracking 3.3 Early ROW Studies The following tasks will be performed: • Perform a field inspection of each short-listed alternative. Ascertain number of parcels, types of improvements, and possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.). Estimate family sizes on residential relocations. • Using city surveys, courthouse records, and real estate listings, compile information on neighborhood characteristics, price ranges for land and improvements, housing available, minority percentages, etc. • Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment. 2 • 199 • • • • Prepare a conceptual relocation study. • Identify potential problem areas. • Prepare a land use map that identifies land usage along each alignment. The parcel use categories shall utilize appropriate categories. Assumption: Short-listed alternative is defined as alternative going into the scoping process. Products: Data for Draft Relocation Impact Report and ROW Data Sheets 3.4 Prepare Draft Relocation Impact Report The Consultant will prepare the report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and the "Uniform Act." This task includes a site visit and research in preparation of the report; no interviews or surveys of the potential displacees will be conducted at the draft stage. The report will include the number and type of: • Residential displacements • Multifamily displacements • Business/nonprofit displacements • Farms/agriculture displacements The report will discuss the potential for last resort housing and the current and anticipated availability of relocation resources. The report will include a discussion of any relocation problems specific to this project and the alternatives, along with suggested solutions/mitigation solutions to those problems. The report will also include potential sequencing or foreseeable relocation difficulties of unusual or difficult displacees. This report will use existing available information in the market including but not limited to professional services, real estate brokers, publications, studies, and government resources. Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one Draft Relocation Impact Report and one Final Relocation Impact Report. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services. 3 200 Product: Draft Relocation Impact Report and Final Relocation Impact Report for each alternative (10 copies of each report). 3.5 Prepare ROW Data Sheets The Consultant shall complete the following: Prepare right-of-way data sheets as required by Caltrans that will be updated annually if there are major scope changes, or after final alternative has been selected. Number of data sheet parcels estimated: 1,500. This analysis will identify the property acquisitions and relocations required for each of the final alternatives based on the ROW requirement map prepared previously. Typically, depending on the alternative, property may be required for highway widening, interchanges, fixed guideways, stations, parking, maintenance facilities, and/or ancillary structures. The work tasks will include the following: • Perform a field inspection of each alternative. Ascertain number of parcels, types of improvements, and possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.). Estimate family sizes on residential relocations. • Using city surveys, courthouse records, and real estate listings, compile information on neighborhood characteristics, price ranges for land and improvements, housing available, minority percentages, etc. • Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment. • Prepare a conceptual relocation study. • Identify potential problem areas. • Prepare a property ownership map based on railroad right-of-way maps and on tax records that identify ownership for each alignment. • Prepare a land use map that identifies land usage along each alignment. The parcel use categories shall utilize appropriate categories, including: o Land in public ownership: specific use and responsible agency/jurisdiction o Commercial: retail, wholesale, industrial, other commercial o Residential: single-family or multifamily o Vacant o Mixed uses o Other (specific) • 4 201 • • • The Consultant shall complete the following: 1. Review the impact of each proposed alignment on existing and known future land uses. 2. Prepare a ROW report that summarizes the findings and includes: (1) a cost estimate for each alignment; (2) a relocation evaluation for each alignment; (3) identified problem areas; (4) ownership map; and (5) a land use map (6) include costs provided by engineers from Task 6.33 covering utility relocation estimate costs and railroad construction costs. 3. Prepare right-of-way data sheets as required by Caltrans. Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one set of Right - of -Way Data Sheets and one Final updated Right -of -Way Data Sheet for each selected alternative. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services. Product: ROW Data Sheets (estimated total parcels: is 1,500) per Caltrans standards for inclusion in the Project Report. CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 3.6 Property Acquisition and Displacement — Hardship and Protection (Right of Way) The work task will include advance purchases for hardship and/or protection parcels. Advance acquisition on adopted roadway routes (except for other compelling circumstances) is made prior to freeway agreement or in advance of the year in which it is programmed. The Streets and Highways Code Section 100.21 prohibits acquisition prior to freeway agreement except for hardship or protection reasons. Advance acquisition may include the voluntary gift or a donation of property. Product: Parcels acquired for hardship and protection s 202 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4.1 Complete Scoping Process The public scoping process includes three public scoping meetings and the distribution of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and a Notice of Preparation to prepare an EIR. These efforts will be accomplished during Phase 1 of the MCP study. Phase 2 scoping tasks are described below. 4.1.1 Draft Scoping Summary Report A Draft Scoping Summary Report will be prepared to document FHWA and RCTC's efforts to identify key issues related to the scope of the environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIS/EIR for the project, as well as the range of project alternatives. The scoping efforts to be documented will include public meetings and a summary of the issues raised in responses to the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and the Notice of Preparation to prepare an EIR. The scoping outreach efforts, including efforts to reach all affected populations —and the resulting input and comments received from public agencies, organizations, and citizens —will be included and summarized in the Draft Scoping Summary Report. The Draft Scoping Summary Report will be submitted to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA for concurrent review. Product: Draft Scoping Summary Report 4.1.2 Final Scoping Summary Report The Draft Scoping Summary Report will be revised pursuant to comments received from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA, and a final Scoping Summary Report will be prepared. The final Scoping Summary Report will be prepared by LSA and distributed to key team members. The information received during the scoping process will be incorporated into the environmental review and analysis of the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Product: Final Scoping Summary Report 1 • 203 • • • Task 4.1.3 Final Evaluation Criteria Draft Evaluation Criteria will be completed and circulated for NEPA/Section 404 agency review in Phase 1. In this task for Phase 2, Final Evaluation Criteria will be prepared following the completion of the scoping phase and receipt of agency comments on the Draft Evaluation Criteria. The Final Evaluation Criteria will be submitted to the NEPA/Section 404 agencies for formal concurrence. Product: Final Evaluation Criteria 4.2 Draft Technical Studies Draft technical studies will be prepared for the following topics described below. Each technical study will include a discussion of the applicable regulatory setting and existing conditions/affected environment. Existing conditions/affected environmental conditions will be documented based on a review of existing literature, mapping (including relevant portions of CETAP Tier1 data), and field surveys as required. For any surveys on private property, LSA will confirm the availability of an approved Right of Entry Agreement, and will contact the property owner in advance as may be required by the Right of Entry Agreement. Relevant evaluation criteria will be highlighted and addressed for each topic. Thresholds of significance under CEQA will also be identified. Both short-term construction -related and long-term operational effects will be analyzed. Avoidance and minimization measures will be identified, as well as mitigation measures where avoidance and minimization are not feasible. Cumulative impact analysis will focus on those topics where cumulative pressures on resources are a concern (e.g., aquatic resources, biological resources). 4.2.1 Biological Resources Technical Reports (NES/JD) Biological resource studies for the MCP will be conducted in accordance with those required by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening Project (MSHCP Section 7.2.3). The Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening Project represents a four -lane divided roadway south of Lake Mathews. In accordance with the MSHCP, if the southerly alignment around Lake Mathews is selected as the Preferred Alternative, an equivalency analysis will be prepared to compare the effects and benefits of the alignment with the "northerly" (north of Lake Mathews) alternative. Biological studies for the MCP will be conducted to satisfy CEQA, the NEPA/Section 404 integration process, and the MSHCP (for "Covered Activities" and for the MSHCP consistency analyses). Covered activities are those development projects that were considered and evaluated in the MSHCP or for which "take authorization" under the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP permit has been authorized. The biological resource studies will also consider the requirements regarding covered species and covered activities identified in HCPs potentially affected by the 2 204 MCP, including the Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (MWD/RCHCA, July 1995) and the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) in Western Riverside County, California (RCHCA, March 1996). In general, these various requirements overlap, and satisfying the multiple requirements of the various documents will not require substantial additional work. It is essential, however, to assemble a data base at the outset of the Phase 2 effort that incorporates the requirements of all of these documents to ensure that the various NEPA/Section 404 analyses, MSHCP consistency analyses, and HCP amendments analyses can be undertaken and processed in a timely manner. The biological studies for the MCP project will be conducted to meet the following objectives: 1) Completion of a technical study analyzing the effects of the project on biological resources. The study results will be documented in a Natural Environment Study (NES) consistent with Caltrans guidelines. 2) Assess the need for amendments to the HCP for the SKR and to the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP. 3) Conduct an MSHCP consistency analysis at two levels: (1) a generalized consistency analysis for CEQA/NEPA purposes, and (2) more detailed consistency and equivalency analyses as required under Section 7.0 of the MSHCP, following the identification of a Preferred Alternative. 4) Follow a process to meet specific milestones that, in the event that a southerly alignment around Lake Mathews is selected as the Preferred Alternative, will provide for the timely completion of the MSHCP equivalency analysis. Following are the milestones to meet the potential requirement for an equivalency analysis: a. Summarize existing data on habitats, covered species, core areas, linkages, constrained linkages, conservation areas, ecotones, and consistency with existing HCPs and NCCPs. The baseline data on habitats and species distribution will be completed during the first one to two months of the contract for use in establishing future milestone dates. b. Coordinate with wildlife agencies regarding sufficiency of existing baseline data for ultimate use in equivalency analysis and to identify any "gaps" in existing data that require further data collection (e.g., field surveys for covered species). This milestone is to be completed 3 • • • 205 with sufficient time to conduct any additional field surveys that may be required during the winter/spring/early summer 2005 field season. c. Conduct an iterative review of project design elements with wildlife agencies to ensure that any alternative south of Lake Mathews will be designed to facilitate movement of avian species and minimize existing reserve fragmentation, and that any stream crossings will be designed to facilitate the movement of mammal species. This process will be initiated as soon as possible during project design. d. Through coordination with the wildlife agencies, establish a set of parameters and a procedure for establishing the replacement ratio and evaluating the adequacy of additional lands to be acquired and conserved. Please see Section 4.11 for more information regarding HCP Amendments and the Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Determination. Following are the proposed tasks to meet the objectives for the biological studies. Literature Review The Environmental Team will review existing literature, GIS data, and other data sources to compile reported information on the distribution of sensitive habitat types, species that require focused surveys in accordance with the MSHCP, and MSHCP- covered species in the vicinity of the alignment south of Lake Mathews. The distribution information will help determine the likelihood of sensitive resources being present within given portions of the study area and will help to focus the survey efforts. Additionally, the distribution information will provide data regarding known locations of sensitive plants that will be used as "reference populations" to verify that species are detectable as of the time of focused surveys. The literature review will provide information regarding the MSHCP and the associated Criteria Area that may be affected by the project. The following literature sources will be reviewed: • Biological Resources Technical Report for Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR • Existing available Lake Mathews HCP and SKR HCP data (as obtained from MWD, USFWS and/or Lake Mathews Reserve Managers Committee) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP) • California Natural Diversity Database • California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory 4 206 • Current aerial photographs (Eagle Aerial 2004) • Western Riverside County SAMP • Other data sources as appropriate The Environmental Team will use information generated as part of the Hemet to — Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Tier 1 environmental studies to the greatest extent feasible. For instance, where the alignment is unchanged from that surveyed for the HCLE study, the previous study data will be utilized to assess habitat suitability for sensitive plant species requiring surveys under the MSHCP. If the previous data show the habitat to be unsuitable for the subject plant species, it may be appropriate to conclude that focused surveys for such species are not necessary. We anticipate that it will be necessary to obtain approval for this approach from the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The Environmental Team will review and interpret aerial photographs to update the HCLE vegetation maps for purposes of identifying any land use changes that may affect habitat suitability for subject species. The vegetation map update will focus on identifying developed or agricultural lands that were previously mapped as natural habitat. Further refinement of the HCLE vegetation maps will be conducted as part of the field surveys. Using the information generated through the literature review, we will compile records on locations of sensitive species within a 5 -mile radius of the project and alternative alignments. We will review the MSHCP to identify areas of public -quasi public lands, habitat cores and blocks, and habitat linkages that may be affected by the project. Existing data from the HCLE studies will be used to refine MSHCP study areas and exclude, where feasible, areas of development or agriculture that are unsuitable as habitat for subject species. Locations where alternative alignments traverse the MSHCP Criteria Area will be reviewed and summarized. The summary will follow the approach for the criteria consistency review process outlined in Section 3.3.1 of the MSHCP, Volume I. The purpose of this summary will be to outline the MSHCP goals for the particular portion of the Criteria Area affected by the alignment under consideration. The purpose of this summary will not be to perform the MSHCP consistency analysis for a particular alignment but rather to establish some of the baseline framework upon which later consistency analyses will be conducted as appropriate. The MSHCP and other relevant documents such as the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR will also be reviewed to identify lands under public or quasi -public • 5 207 • • • ownership that are currently managed for conservation values. Conservation objectives, biological resource data, and related information conservation areas will be summarized. Field Surveys Field surveys will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP and applicable survey protocols of the USFWS and CDFG. Field data will be collected using GPS equipment and current aerial photographs. Standard field data forms will be prepared for use with the various surveys. Where feasible, surveys will be combined. Typically, survey results are valid for one year; thus, additional surveys may be required prior to the commencement of construction activities. The proposed scope of services is based on the assumption that surveys will not be required for MSHCP "covered species." Should the wildlife agencies determine through the Equivalency Analysis process that focused surveys for covered species are required, an amendment to the scope of services and budget will be needed to complete the necessary surveys. Reconnaissance -Level Mapping Update A reconnaissance -level survey will be conducted by driving the proposed alignments to update and refine existing MSHCP and HCLE vegetation maps. This refined data will be used for planning the various field surveys and for general analysis of impacts to vegetation types and Criteria Area. As part of this effort, the Environmental Team will coordinate with MSHCP monitoring program staff to assess the status of the Vegetation Rapid Assessment Protocol being undertaken by CDFG as described in Section 5.3.5 of the MSHCP. Those data will be incorporated into the analysis to the maximum extent possible. Sensitive Plants Where necessary, habitat suitability assessments will be performed to identify those portions of the alignment in which additional focused surveys will be required or to identify areas in which focused surveys will not be needed. The MSHCP requires that habitat assessments for several of the species be conducted during the rainy season (generally November through April); assessments for other species can be conducted year-round. For purposes of labor efficiency and to meet the project schedule, the Environmental Team proposes to conduct all required habitat suitability assessments during the rainy season. Per the MSHCP, habitat assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat is present) will be required for the following species: 6 208 NEPSSA — Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area Munz's onion (Allium munzii) San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) Slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) Brand's phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) San Miguel savory (Satureja chandlers) Hammitt's clay -cress (Sibaropsis hammittii) Wright's trichocoronis(Trichocoronis wrightii wrightii) CASSA — Criteria Area Species Survey Area San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) Thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens) Round -leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum) Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulters) Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. Apus) Mud nama (Nama stenocarpum) Focused surveys will be conducted during the blooming season for the subject plant species. Generally, spring (March through June) is the blooming season for most of the species; however, some species bloom earlier or later and the overall blooming season may vary depending on the timing and quantity of winter rains. Within areas of suitable habitat, two survey visits will be conducted for the subject species; however, due to blooming season variations for the involved species, up to five visits may be required in those areas that provide suitable habitat for multiple species. Where possible, the Environmental Team will visit nearby reference populations of the subject species to verify the species are blooming and detectable and to therefore confirm that that the survey timing is appropriate. Surveys will be conducted by LSA and Dudek biologists who are fully familiar with the habitat requirements and techniques for field identification of the subject species. Small Mammals The portion of the study area in the vicinity of Lake Perris and the San Jacinto River is within the survey area for the Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM). The Environmental Team will conduct small mammal trapping surveys for the LAPM within the survey area. 7 • 209 • • • Additionally, the CDFG staff has identified concerns about potential habitat fragmentation effects where an MCP alternative alignment traverses the edge of the SKR San Jacinto Core Reserve in the vicinity of Lake Perris. Focused walkover surveys or small mammal trapping may be necessary in the vicinity of the Core Reserve to assess habitat fragmentation issues in this area. It is anticipated that a single survey at a rate of 50 acres per day to cover the entire subject area will be sufficient for a walkover survey. If small mammal trapping is necessary, it is anticipated that three trapping efforts (five consecutive nights of trapping per effort) will be sufficient. The Environmental Team will coordinate with the RCA and CDFG to determine appropriate survey methodologies in this area. Walkover and trapping surveys will be conducted by qualified biologists under USFWS and CDFG permits for working with the SKR and other subject species. It is likely that a single small mammal trapping survey will suffice to collect information regarding both the LAPM and the SKR. Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, and specific conservation objectives for this species are incorporated in the MSHCP. Among the conservation objectives are requirements to conduct surveys during the early planning stages of projects to identify occupied areas that may be desirable for acquisition for the MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP also includes requirements to conduct preconstruction surveys to allow for passive relocation and avoid direct impacts to owls. As part of this scope of services, the early planning stage surveys will be undertaken. Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP identifies a burrowing owl survey area within which suitable habitat is to be identified and surveys conducted within identified suitable habitat. The survey area encompasses essentially the entire study area for the MCP, approximately 10,600 acres. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that approximately 60% of the study area, or 6,360 acres, will be determined to include suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Pursuant to the MSHCP and the Survey Protocol for burrowing owls endorsed by both the CDFG and USFWS, an assessment will be conducted to determine habitat suitability for the portion of the MCP alternatives that is within the MSHCP-mapped burrowing owl survey area. Data from the literature review on the known distribution of the owl in the vicinity of the MCP alternatives will be summarized to identify areas of known or potentially occupied habitat. Areas of suitable habitat will be surveyed for the presence of burrows that may be suitable for use by the burrowing owl. Surveys will be conducted at transect intervals sufficient to provide 100 percent coverage of all potential habitat on site. 8 210 Riparian Birds Habitat suitability assessments are required by the MSCHP for the following riparian bird species: least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) (LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (SWF), and California yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) (cuckoo). A habitat suitability assessment will be conducted on all areas that have been mapped as riparian habitat in the updated vegetation map. Riparian habitats include riparian forest, southern sycamore/alder riparian woodland, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, open water, and marsh. Focused surveys will be conducted for those portions of the study area that support potential habitat (dense riparian vegetation) for the species. Surveys will be conducted according to the latest USFWS protocol for the LBV and SWF. There is no protocol for the cuckoo; however, surveys will be conducted for all three species. The survey results will be valid for a period of at least one year. Focused surveys will be conducted eight times, with a minimum of 10 -day intervals, during the period from May 20 to July 31. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State Literature review data will be used to identify those areas of the alignment that may qualify as jurisdictional waters, including the Planning -Level Delineation (Lichvar, 2002; 2004). To identify jurisdictional wetlands, a three parameter delineation will be conducted according to the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual, and to delineate the jurisdictional limit of non -wetland waters of the U.S. following the procedures set forth in 33 CFR 328.3(e). The wetlands delineation and jurisdictional determination will be conducted for all proposed alternatives evaluated within the Draft EIS/EIR within the study area. It is anticipated that a Routine Delineation (as defined by the Corps), tailored to the site characteristics, will be adequate. Further, the extent of any streambed and associated riparian areas subject to review by the CDFG under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code will be determined. The results of the draft jurisdictional delineation/determination will require verification and approval by the Corps and CDFG. Fairy Shrimp If suitable habitat is found in the biological resources study area, the Environmental Team will conduct a focused wet -season fairy shrimp survey of all seasonal pools believed to provide suitable habitat. The survey will be conducted according to USFWS guidelines (Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods, April 19, 1996), as appropriate. For vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the MSHCP states that a single -season dry or wet season survey for this species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with accepted protocol. A wet season survey is generally considered to provide more 9 • 211 • • • comprehensive data; therefore, the Environmental Team will conduct a wet season survey during the 2004-2005 rainy season. A wet season survey consists of several site visits for seasonal pool sampling. The first site visit must occur no later than two weeks after pools are initially inundated to a depth of at least 3 centimeters (cm) for 24 hours after a storm event. Additional site visits occur every two weeks for 120 days, or until the pools are no longer inundated. If the pools dry and then refill within the wet season, sampling must be reinitiated within eight days of refilling. If seasonal pools do not have standing water at the time of the habitat suitability assessment, and suitable habitat is determined to exist, LSA or Dudek biologists will briefly visit the site after each storm event to determine when initial sampling must begin. It is estimated that no more than six site visits will be required to check for each pool filling/refilling after storm events and that no more than eight additional site visits will be required for pool sampling. In addition to the species noted above, the Lake Mathews HCP identifies a number of target species that are not included on the MSHCP Covered Species list. These species are listed below. Consideration of these species will be included in the analysis of effects of the MCP project on the Lake Mathews HCP and in preparation and processing of any Lake Mathews HCP amendment. Plants: great valley (or clay) phacelia (Phacelia ciliaae), large -leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Braunton's milkvetch (Astragalus brauntonii). Amphibians and Reptiles: San Bernardino ring -neck snake (Didiphis punctatus modestus) Birds: bank swallow (Riparia riparia), blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), long-eared owl (asio otus), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), rough -legged hawk (Buteo lagopu). Mammals: American badger (Taxidea taxus), big or picketed free -tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus or macroti), little brown bat (Myotis spp.), pallid bat (Antrosous pallidus), western mastiff bat (eumpos perotis), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus Hesperus). Little is known about a number of these species, particularly the bats. Using existing available information, suitable habitat for these species will be identified within the Lake Mathews HCP portion of the study area. For species for which survey protocols are available, focused surveys will be conducted. Anecdotal observations of these species during other field efforts will also be recorded. 10 212 Wildlife Movement and Habitat Connectivity As identified above for small mammals, and using existing available information, including MSHCP biological cores and linkages and biological considerations within affected portions of the MSHCP Criteria Area, existing wildlife movement and habitat connectivity and fragmentation issues in the project study area will be identified and summarized. This information will provide a baseline for analysis of impacts in the Natural Environment Study (NES). Report Preparation NES The Environmental Team will prepare a Natural Environment Study (NES) report in accordance with the Caltrans template dated April 24, 2003, as modified for purposes of analysis under the MSHCP, or other format As directed and approved by RCTC and Caltrans, the proposed scope of services is based on the MSHCP, which precludes the need to survey for certain species, and limits the analysis required for impacts to such species. This approach represents a departure from the standard Caltrans NES methodology and format. Therefore, the project team will coordinate with Caltrans at the beginning of the project to confirm that the proposed approach will be sufficient for Caltrans purposes. The NES will include: • A description of study methodologies • A summary of the results of the literature review • A discussion of the results of each of the various field surveys • Maps depicting field survey results • Maps of MSHCP Criteria areas • Maps of designated or proposed critical habitat • A review of MSHCP requirements and consistency of each alternative with the MSHCP • A table describing sensitive species that are present or potentially present for each alternative • A summary of the results for each alternative of the delineation of waters subject to jurisdiction of the Corps, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board • An assessment of project impacts to biological resources, including sensitive plants, small mammals, burrowing owl, riparian birds, fairy shrimp, jurisdictional waters, sensitive habitats, and habitat connectivity • 11 213 • • • • A list of all plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected • Recommendations for mitigation (such measures will be included upon completion of coordination with the project team, including Caltrans representatives; these mitigation measures will not include construction -level documents such as specific restoration plans) The NES will identify the need for any additional biological surveys (i.e., focused surveys that may need to be updated at the time of construction). The NES will also identify regulatory permits that may be required for project approval and construction (i.e. a Corps Section 404 permit, CDFG 1602 Agreement, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Certification. The processing of required permits is not included within this scope of services. Product: 20 copies of Draft NES Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report A technical report will be prepared presenting the results of the jurisdictional delineation. The report will be suitable for submittal to the involved agencies for purposes of permit application and for inclusion as a technical appendix in the Draft EIS/EIR. Accordingly, the report will identify and quantify jurisdictional areas and features by alternative, including a breakdown of wetlands and non -wetland waters of the U.S., as well as an estimate of permanent and temporary impacts resulting from the discharge of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the U.S. In addition, data and findings from the ERDC's baseline Functional Assessment and impact analysis will be incorporated into the report. The jurisdictional delineation report will include: • A description of study methodologies • Background information of the Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB pertaining to regulating impacts to drainages • A description of vegetation, soils, and hydrology present within the alignment • Maps depicting field survey results (including locations of wetlands, non - wetland waters of the U.S., and CDFG jurisdictional streambeds) • A table summarizing acreage of impacts to potential jurisdictional areas • Field data sheets at sample plot locations Product: 20 copies of Draft Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report Focused Survey Reports 12 214 A stand-alone report will be prepared for the results of each focused survey effort. Reports will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP and USFWS permits for conducting surveys for threatened and endangered species. Reports will be prepared for the following issues: • Habitat suitability assessment for NEPSSA and CASSA plants. This report will be submitted to RCTC upon completion of the field surveys for concurrence with the survey results prior to the initiation of focused plant surveys. • Functions and values assessment for vernal pools that may be affected. This information will be generated from data gathered during the delineation and NEPSSA, CASSA, and fairy shrimp surveys. • Habitat suitability for fairy shrimp. • Functions and values assessment for riparian habitat that may be affected. This information will be generated from data gathered during the delineation and riparian bird surveys. • Survey results for riparian birds. • Survey results for fairy shrimp. • Survey results for NEPSSA and CASSA plants. Product: 10 copies of each draft survey report 4.2.2 Cultural Resources Technical Reports (HPSR/ASR/HRER) LSA will be the lead consultant on the cultural resources technical studies, with support from Applied Earthworks (archaeological studies) and MFA/JSA (historic architectural evaluations). 4.2.2.1 Identification. Agency Coordination. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) throughout the execution of this task. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc., while adhering to the proposed schedule. Where appropriate, the work plan and reporting detailed in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook (Volume 2), Cultural Resources (Draft January, 2004), as well as updates posted on the Caltrans Web site will be used to direct the work effort. In addition, work will be conducted in accordance with the January 2004 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 13 • 215 • • Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -Aid Highway Program in California (PA). Caltrans District 8 cultural resources staff concur that the PA applies to the MCP project. APE/Study Area Map Development. Project engineering will be available in January 2005. These design drawing will be used to develop the project Area of Potential Effect (APE)/Study Area map for the undertaking. LSA will coordinate with District 8 staff in the development of appropriate APE limits for both the area of direct impact and the indirect impact area for the project. All elements of this SOW and Budget are based on the preliminary study area defined on September 27, 2004. If any variations to this study area occur, a budget and scope adjustment may be necessary. As discussed with Caltrans, a project specific APE will be developed where engineering is suitably advanced to allow this level of analysis. In areas where current design is not specific (for example, in the area surrounding Lake Mathews), a "study area" encompassing a wider bandwidth will be used. Under the terms of the PA, Caltrans will approve this map. As the project APE is defined in these Study Areas, the refined APE maps will be developed in consultation with District 8 staff. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA recognizes that the federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes and that Caltrans/FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American consultation. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans/FHWA to determine the level of involvement LSA will have in the Native American consultation process. LSA will also consult with other interested parties, including non -federally recognized Native American groups and local historical and archaeological societies. In consultation with District 8, LSA will contact the tribal entities identified in the NAHC letter, and through prior efforts for the CETAP project, to solicit their concerns and input into the cultural resource management program for this project. This initial contact will be made through a verifiable letter system (e.g., Certified Letter). Subsequently, LSA will contact those entities by up to two phone calls to ensure each group has an opportunity to comment on the project. LSA will then coordinate up to 10 meetings with such groups (as needed), documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate. Consultation will continue throughout the Section 106 compliance effort. Archival and Historic Research. LSA will conduct an archaeological and historical records review and literature search through the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at the University of California, Riverside. The EIC houses the pertinent 14 216 archaeological and historic site and survey information necessary to determine whether previously recorded cultural resources are known to exist within the property. The objectives of this archival research will be: (1) to establish the extent and status of cultural resources previously documented within the project area; and (2) to note what site types might be expected to occur within the project area based on the existing data from known cultural resource sites located within a one -mile radius. In addition, LSA will obtain previous cultural resource reports for sites whose National Register or California Register eligibility has been evaluated. For the built environment, LSA will obtain from the EIC the most current listing of the Historic Resources Inventory, which reports previous survey findings for buildings and structures along the proposed project. These prior evaluations may reduce the need for new evaluations for the MCP project (See Task 4.2.2.2 of this scope of services for more information). Research for the MCP will be conducted in order to provide a prehistoric and historic contexts for the region. This research and context will guide the evaluation of all cultural resources. Research will be conducted in repositories in Riverside County, including the offices of the Riverside County Assessor, Recorder, and Department of Public Works; the University of California, Riverside; California History Room, City of Riverside Public Library; Riverside County Historical Commission; Riverside County Archives Commission; the San Jacinto Valley Museum; and any others. In addition, research will be conducted in the California Room, California State Library, Sacramento (census records, city directories, newspapers, and many maps and histories); and by contacting local historians and local agency staff. Caltrans District 8 staff will be contacted to obtain any pertinent Caltrans records of early road construction or historic aerial maps that may help identify the construction history of the built environment. Archaeological and Architectural Field Survey of the Study Area. LSA will survey the portions of the study area that have not been recently surveyed. For areas that have been previously surveyed, LSA will work with District 8 staff to determine if additional survey work will be necessary. The total study area for the six "build" alignments is currently estimated at 10,600 acres, of which 4,300 acres have been previously surveyed adequately. It is estimated that 6,300 acres will require pedestrian surveys for both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and the built environment. This SOW and Budget is based on this assumption. In previously unsurveyed areas, a team of archaeologists will walk a series of parallel transects spaced at 10-15 meter intervals across the study area until it has been completely surveyed. All sites within the study area will be mapped using sub -meter GPS equipment and recorded digitally for input into the project 15 • 217 • GIS database. Since the majority of these archaeological sites will be evaluated during the next task, LSA recommends that only Primary Forms of the State Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (DPR 523 Series) be completed at this time to initially record the sites, with additional forms (e.g., Archaeological Site Records, Milling Station Records, Linear Feature Records, etc.) completed during the evaluation phase. For previously surveyed areas, LSA will revisit and update site records of known resources as necessary. LSA historians/architectural historians will survey the study area by vehicle, to identify elements of the built environment that are between 30 and 45 years in age. In accordance with the PA, a Professionally Qualified Staff person will determine whether any of these resources may be exempt from evaluation. The level of effort expended on research for the architectural resources that require evaluation will be commensurate with their potential for significance. Since built environment resources are evaluated in this task, all evaluated buildings will be recorded on DPR 523 forms (Primary and Building, Structure, Object Records), except for those that have been so altered as to appear less than 30 years of age, or those that have been moved within the past 50 years. The only properties less than 50 years of age to be recorded will be those that have achieved exceptional significance within the last 50 years. Based on prior research, there are approximately 118 previously recorded cultural resources within the area affected by the six build alternatives. The majority of these resources are prehistoric archaeological sites (n=78). These include 47 milling slicks with no surface component, at least 5 rock art sites. Historic archaeological sites (n=15) consist primarily of building foundations, abandoned irrigation systems, and historic refuse dumps/scatters. The majority of the previously recorded built environment resources (n=24) appear to be residential in nature, constructed in the early to mid 1900s. Most of these resources are concentrated in the communities of Mead Valley and Lakeview; however, there are several dairies in the San Jacinto Valley and other pockets of roadside commercial enterprises. There is one site that contains prehistoric and historic archaeological resources as well as elements of the built environment. Extended Phase I Archaeological Survey. There are 47 previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites that are classified as prehistoric milling slicks without any associated surface artifacts (60% of total known prehistoric archaeological sites). Millings slicks without an associated surface component typically indicate that use of the site was not intense and that the site does not have a strong potential for significance. For these 47 archaeological sites, and any similar sites identified during the archaeological survey, LSA will conduct an Extended Phase I Archaeological Survey (XPI). 16 218 The purpose of the survey will be to determine whether or not a subsurface component of the site is present or absent. If there is a subsurface component of the site, then it will need to be evaluated (as described in Task 4.2.2.2 of this scope of services); if there is no subsurface component of the site, then further evaluation will not be necessary. Prior to the XPI, an Extended Phase I Proposal will be completed and approved by Caltrans/FHWA pursuant to the PA. Shovel test pits (STPs) are the most likely method of determining the presence/absence of a sub -surface archaeological deposit. For the purposes of this proposal, 47 sites requiring an XPI are assumed and will be investigated through the placement of approximately 4 STPs at each site. 4.2.2.2 Evaluation Based on known resources within the study area (n=118), LSA has assumed that no more than 188 archaeological resources will be identified on the alternatives considered. This estimate assumes 156 prehistoric archaeological sites, 30 historic archaeological sites, and two sites that contain elements of both disciplines. Based on known resources, LSA has assumed that approximately 60% of the prehistoric archaeological sites (n=96) are milling slicks without surface or sub -surface components and will be investigated through the Extended Phase I program. The remaining sites will undergo evaluation as described below. Continuing Agency Coordination. LSA will provide on -going coordination with Caltrans, FHWA, and SHPO throughout the execution of the evaluation process. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA will continue its role to ensure that Native American and interested parties consultation for the project continues in compliance with the requirements of Section 106. This will include coordinating and attending up to five meetings with such groups, documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate. Archaeological Evaluation Proposal/Testing Plan. Upon completion and acceptance of the survey and extended survey effort, LSA will develop an Archaeological Evaluation Proposal. This report will state the goals of the study and clearly establish the field and laboratory methods that will complete this evaluation. It will include a realistic and site -specific research design, background 17 • 219 • • • information, and a discussion of the regional research issues. Curation plans, permits, time requirements, and personnel will also be addressed. Archaeological Evaluation. This task involves completing suitable evaluation excavations to allow characterization of the horizontal and vertical extent of each investigated site, as well as characterization of the site contents and development of a recommendation as to the National Register eligibility of the site. The evaluation program will include a discussion of the significance, integrity, and mitigation recommendations for subsequent work. Prior work conducted within the APE will be used where possible to minimize required excavation. The extent that prior evaluation work can be used will be assessed in Task 4.2.2.1. Geomorphological Trenching. In order to determine the stratigraphic integrity of the archaeological sites, LSA proposes to excavate a series of trenches at the various sites (as determined appropriate in the Archaeological Evaluation Proposal) to evaluate the geomorphology of site deposits. To do this, LSA will analyze and interpret the depositional history of the project area. This analysis will focus on determining whether each site is intact; and, if so, developing accurate horizontal and vertical boundaries for the resource. This task will be critical to determining the significance of a site. STPs. LSA proposes to use STPs to determine the presence/absence of subsurface deposits at each site location and to help define the horizontal and vertical boundaries of each site. STPs will also help characterize the contents of each site and will be used to develop information on artifact/ecofact densities within each site. The STPs do not focus on statistical samples, but help to characterize the nature and extent of each deposit. If an archaeological site is present within project boundaries, additional excavation will be necessary to evaluate each site. An STP is approximately 35 cm in diameter and is excavated at 20 cm intervals. Each discrete interval is then screened to identify the presence/absence of cultural remains. If cultural remains are identified, the site is considered to be present in the area of the STP. If remains are absent in several consecutive STPs, the site is not considered to extend to that area. For the purposes of this proposal, midden depth within the site is assumed to be no more than 60 cm. Unit Excavation. At each site located within the APE where STPs and/or trench excavations have identified a subsurface deposit, LSA will hand -excavate 1 x 1 meter units. If the STPs and/or trenching at any site do not identify a subsurface deposit, LSA will not excavate 1 x 1 meter units at that site. Each unit is excavated in 10 cm increments until the bottom of the archaeological deposit is reached. The purpose of unit excavation is to allow for a large enough sample of 18 220 the subsurface deposit to be obtained in stratigraphic context, allowing LSA to ascertain the site type and any intrasite variation. Each unit will be placed based on information obtained from the STP and/or trench excavations. The proposed number of units per site will be determined in the Archaeological Evaluation Report. For the purposes of this scope of services, midden depth within each site is assumed to be no more than 60 cm deep. If in situ features are identified during excavation, additional budget may be necessary to account for additional excavation time. Site Mapping. LSA will map the site boundaries; STP, trench, and unit locations; surface artifacts, including artifact clusters/features; and other notable features. To complete this mapping, LSA will utilize sub -meter accuracy GPS equipment. Database/Cataloging. LSA will create a database that will be used for cataloging and analytical purposes. This database will have provenience information, including the STP/unit number, level, artifact class, artifact identification, material type, measurements, and other variables where appropriate. All items that come to the lab will be entered into the database. The database will be the basis for the catalog that will follow the collection. General Sorting. Materials collected during the excavation program will be dry screened in the field and the residual will be transported to the LSA Cultural/Paleontological Resources Laboratory for analysis. The first step is to sort materials into general categories based on artifact class (Flaked Stone, Ground Stone, Faunal Remains, Ceramics, Historics, and Artifact Analysis). All material will be sorted and cataloged, and then a technical analysis will be conducted. Technical Analyses. Technical studies will be competed for each artifact class: flaked stone, ground stone, faunal, ceramics, historic material, and artifact analysis. If suitable materials are collected, specialized analysis will be conducted on those materials. Materials that would undergo specialized analysis include, but are not limited to, bone/shell/charcoal (carbon-14 dating), obsidian (hydration and sourcing), and projectile points and grinding stones (blood residue tests). Products: 15 copies of Draft AER, Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect 4.2.2.3 Documentation And Reports LSA will develop a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the Caltrans/FHWA master document for the identification effort. Attached to the HPSR 19 o 221 • • • will be the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the Extended Phase I Survey Report (XPI Report), and a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that documents the results of the survey efforts. The contents of the report will be coordinated with Caltrans/FHWA. HPSR. Upon completion of the research and consultation described above, LSA will complete an HPSR. The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation and decision -making, and serves as the supporting documentation for NEPA and CEQA compliance. The HPSR documents completion of the identification phase, completion of the National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and, as appropriate, a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions. The HPSR will present a summary of findings, document public participation, describe properties identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register and under CEQA, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The HPSR will include a location map, project vicinity map, and APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and other graphics. The HPSR will contain the following attachments as appropriate: Archaeological Survey Report, Extended Survey Report, Historic Resource Evaluation Report, Bridge Evaluation, Test Excavation Report, and letters from any concerned or interested parties. ASR. The ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for prehistoric archaeological resources. The ASR will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of the existing environment, ethnography, and prehistory of the study area, a description of identified prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. The ASR will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms (initially limited to Primary Forms during this stage), and any other documents that may be necessary, such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. XPI Report. The XPI Report will document efforts of the XPI. The XPI Report will contain documentation of the research and field methods; a brief overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory; description of the prehistoric archaeological resources; and findings and conclusions. The XPI Report will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. For sites that do not contain intact sub -surface elements, additional DPR forms, completing the recordation of these sites, will be prepared. 20 222 HRER. The HRER will document identification, recordation, and evaluation efforts for the built environment and historical archaeological resources. The preparer(s) of the HRER will meet the Architectural Historian Qualifications Standards set forth in Attachment 1 of the 2004 PA. The HRER will follow the format set forth in Exhibit 6.2 of Caltrans Environmental Handbook Volume 2. The HRER will contain documentation of the research and field methods, a historical overview, the description and significance of identified historic archaeological and built environment cultural resources (if applicable), and findings and conclusions. The HRER will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms for properties not exempted under Attachment 4 of the PA, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and historical archaeological site records. Preparation of one HRER is anticipated; however, the complexity of resources, degree of effect, and evaluation of resources may require multiple HRERs. Archaeological Evaluation Report. LSA will develop an Archaeological Evaluation Report (AER). The AER will provide the basis for determining whether sites within the APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The report will document the fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. If appropriate, a Preliminary Archaeological Evaluation Report will be developed that will briefly summarize the results of the evaluation effort. Development of a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for the Studied Resources. LSA will work with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for the resources studied in Task 4.2.2.2. The Determination of Eligibility is typically reported in the HPSR. The Finding of Effect is prepared for only those properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The specific format for the Finding of Effect will follow the format set forth in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook, Volume 2, presuming Caltrans has completed that format before the draft work product is due. These eligibility and effects recommendations will be subject to FHWA/Caltrans and SHPO review and comment. Products: 15 copies of Draft HPSR, ASR, XPI Report, HRER, AER 4.2.3 Paleontological Evaluation Report LSA will prepare a Paleontological Evaluation Report that addresses the potential for paleontological resources along the proposed right-of-way for each alternative and provides measures to mitigate impacts to significant, nonrenewable paleontological 21 • 223 • • • resources that may be encountered and impacted during construction excavation. A report will be developed that conforms to Caltrans requirements and County of Riverside guidelines. Specific tasks to be performed include the following: Paleontological literature review and records search through appropriate institutions that maintain records of paleontological resources within Riverside County. • Field assessment of sensitive sediments along the right-of-way to confirm potential for paleontological resources. • Development of a report that describes what ages and types of paleontological resources might be encountered by construction excavation and that describes project -specific methods to mitigate impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources. Recommendations will be made for curation of specimens in an accredited Riverside County museum. • Compilation of a paleontological resource sensitivity map that indicates which rock units along the route might contain paleontological resources and where construction monitoring for resources should focus. Product: 10 copies of Draft Paleontological Evaluation Report 4.2.4 Noise Technical Report The noise impact analysis will address the noise requirements of RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans, the County of Riverside, and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto, where applicable. LSA will prepare a technical noise impact analysis consistent with all applicable procedures and requirements. Projected vehicular traffic volumes on the corridor and adjacent affected street segments will be used in preparing the technical noise impact analysis for each alternative. Additional information required is identified in the discussion below. The report will be prepared to respond to all applicable CEQA and NEPA evaluation criteria, as well as to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements. Baseline Noise Conditions. LSA will review applicable federal (FHWA), State (Caltrans), County of Riverside (County), and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto land use and noise compatibility criteria for the project area. Noise abatement criteria (NAC) required by Caltrans and FHWA will be identified and used in the analysis. Noise standards regulating noise impacts in the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance of the County of Riverside and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto will be discussed for land uses on and adjacent to the project site. The areas with potential future noise impacts will be identified using land use information, aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. A discussion of existing sensitive uses along the project corridor will be included. Existing roadway traffic noise will be 22 224 calculated as baseline conditions, using traffic data included in the traffic study for the proposed project. A survey of existing ambient noise levels will be conducted to establish the character of the noise environment at the identified sensitive receptor locations along the corridor. Noise measurements will be taken at up to 90 locations. Observations of noise sources and other noise correlates will be noted during each measurement period. Construction Impacts. Construction would occur during implementation of the proposed project. Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed for each alternative based on the available project -specific information, such as the equipment expected to be used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. EPA -recommended noise emission levels will be used for the construction equipment. Blasting or pile -driving may be required for the project construction. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax), and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq), and the frequency of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations. Analysis requirements will be based on the sensitivity of the area and the noise control ordinance specifications of the County of Riverside and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto. Mobile Source Noise Impacts. The proposed project is expected to accommodate projected future growth in intracounty traffic trips and is not expected to generate new vehicular traffic trips. It is anticipated that most of the alternatives would improve circulation within the County and reduce congestion along other roadways. However, there is a possibility that some traffic currently utilizing other area roadways would be attracted to use the improved transportation corridor. Furthermore, the proposed MCP may bring the vehicular traffic closer to noise - sensitive receptors. Noise impacts from vehicular traffic will be assessed for each alternative using the current traffic noise model required by Caltrans and FHWA as of February 1, 2005,. Model input data needed include peak hour traffic levels; percentages of autos and medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors; and roadway widths. Peak -hour Continuous Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) along the project corridor and area roadways that would be potentially affected will be tabulated. Traffic parameters necessary for the model input will be obtained from the traffic study prepared for this project. Noise Abatement Measures. Noise abatement measures designed to reduce short - and long-term impacts to acceptable noise levels in the vicinity of the MCP corridor 23 • 225 • • • alternatives will be determined where necessary. Both an evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. Feasibility and Reasonableness Analysis. A feasibility and reasonableness analysis will be provided for all noise abatement measures identified, based on Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (Caltrans, October 1998). Noise Contour Map. Projected traffic noise contours for the 67 dBA Leg, which represents the noise abatement criteria for Activity Category B sensitive receptors (as defined in 23 CFR 772) such as residences, will be plotted on a map for each alternative. Product: 15 copies of Draft Noise Technical Report 4.2.5 Air Quality Technical Report The air quality impact analysis will address local and regional impacts on sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site. The air quality analysis will place particular emphasis on delineating the issues specific to RCTC, the County, the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) air quality requirements. LSA will prepare an air quality technical report for the proposed project. The report will be prepared to respond to all applicable CEQA and NEPA evaluation criteria, as well as to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements. Baseline Air Quality Conditions. Baseline and project setting meteorological and air quality data developed through the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the AQMD will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality along the project corridor. Air quality data from the Norco, Perris, and Hemet Air Quality Monitoring Stations published for the past three years will be included to help highlight existing air quality local to the proposed project corridor. Other sources such as regulatory documents, professional publications, and LSA experience in the project area will supplement background information. A summary of current air quality management efforts that may be related to the proposed project will be provided. A brief overview of the nature and location of existing sensitive receptors will be provided to set the context for how such uses may be affected by the proposed project. Short -Term Construction Emissions. Construction would occur during implementation of the proposed project. Air quality impacts from grading and construction sources will be analyzed for each of the alternatives based on available project information, such as the equipment used, length of time for a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), equipment 24 226 emission factors approved by the EPA (AP -42 Handbooks), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. Exhaust and dust emissions from worker commutes and equipment travel will be calculated based on available information regarding these activities. Fugitive dust emissions would result from wind erosion of exposed soil and soil storage piles, grading operations, and vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads. Emissions associated with asphalt paving will be calculated when specific data are available. Emission factors included in the AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook will be used for construction dust emission estimates. These emissions will be calculated based on construction information available and provided to LSA. Long -Term Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions. The proposed project is planned to accommodate projected future growth in intracounty traffic trips and is not expected to generate new vehicular traffic trips. It is anticipated that most of the project alternatives would improve circulation within the County and reduce congestion along other roadways. The daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) may be reduced as well. Project -related changes in the VMT and average speed included in the traffic study for each of the alternatives will be used in the air quality analysis. Emissions will be calculated with the ARB's EMFAC 2002air quality model and the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. It is not expected that there will be stationary source emissions as a result of the proposed project. Long -Term CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis. Vehicular traffic on area roadways is expected to increase due to area growth with population expansion. Furthermore, the project alternatives would bring the vehicular traffic closer to receptors along the road. A screening analysis will be conducted for carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot analysis based on the guidelines provided in Caltrans Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (May 1996). If potential impacts would occur, a detailed CO hot spot analysis will be conducted based on the projected peak hour traffic along the corridor and turn volumes projected at key affected interchanges along the corridor in the project vicinity that would be affected by the project. The Caline4 model will be used for the CO hot spot analysis. Screening Level Health Risk Assessment. LSA will conduct a screening -level health risk assessment (HRA) for sensitive receptors along the proposed corridor for each alternative. The screening level HRA will be conducted based on the projected future traffic volumes, fleet mix, and associated diesel particulate exhaust. The calculated levels will be compared to applicable health -based criteria. Conformity Analysis. The project's conformity with the current version of the approved RTP and RTIP will be discussed, using SCAG's regional air quality modeling for the RTP and RTIP as a basis. Any differences between alternatives will be noted. 25 • 227 • • Mitigation Measures. LSA will work with RCTC and Caltrans to incorporate feasible mitigation measures for air quality into the report. The cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto and AQMD may also be consulted to identify feasible mitigation measures. Product: 15 copies of Draft Air Quality Technical Report 4.2.6 Community Impact Assessment (including Environmental Justice and Farmlands) A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines found in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(0 Documents, October 30, 1987) and the Caltrans Community Impact Assessment Handbook (June 1997). A windshield survey will be conducted initially to determine the affected socioeconomic environment (study area) for the proposed action. The study area will be reviewed with Caltrans and local agency staff, utilizing the boundaries and locations of local community facilities, school districts, census tracts, and community planning areas. After the study area has been agreed upon by the participating agencies, the following socioeconomic topics will be evaluated in the CIA for each of the alternatives under consideration: Land Use Impacts and Growth Inducement, Farmland Impacts, Social Impacts, Relocation Impacts, and Economic Impacts. Specific issues to be addressed within each topic are discussed in further detail below. Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential socioeconomic impacts related to each topic shall be identified in the CIA where feasible. Land Use Impacts and Growth Inducement. The CIA will provide a description of existing and planned land uses within the study area (utilizing the most current GIS data), current development trends, and a description of all developable lands that would be made more accessible by the proposed action. Each alternative will be evaluated for its compatibility with and impacts to the existing and planned land uses within the study area. The discussion will assess the consistency of each alternative with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and plans related to land use and growth. This analysis will include projections of housing stock within the study area and a description of housing policies and programs related to each affected jurisdiction. This discussion will include an analysis of each alternative's impact on the jobs and housing balance based upon the interrelationship of commuting patterns with the location of future housing and employment centers within the study area. The CIA will consider the ways that each alternative could foster economic or • population growth or the construction of additional housing (either directly or 26 228 indirectly) within the study area. Planned growth relative to the highway infrastructure capacity throughout the study area will be considered to determine the potential for growth -inducing impacts of the proposed action. This discussion will include a consistency analysis of the proposed project with relevant air quality and congestion management plans, as well as regional/local land use plans and their incorporated population and employment projections. The potential for growth inducement will be evaluated based upon the potential for exceeding roadway capacity, levels of services, and increases (or decreases) in accessibility to vacant parcels, underutilized land, and agricultural land. The discussion will also include an evaluation and comparison of direct and indirect impacts of growth inducement. Farmland Impacts. The CIA will include a farmland impacts analysis, including an evaluation of impacts to all four types of farmland, including: (1) prime, (2) unique, (3) farmland of statewide importance, and (4) farmland of local importance. Early consultation will be initiated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and, as appropriate, the California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. A map will be prepared identifying the location of all four types of farmlands within the study area. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model will be used to prepare Form AD 1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) in order to determine the merits of retaining parcels proposed for conversion from agricultural use. Based upon the results of Form AD 1006, the CIA will: (1) discuss and summarize the impacts to farmlands from each alternative under consideration, (2) identify the status and summarize the potential impacts to Williamson Act contract lands, and (3) identify measures to avoid or reduce impacts to farmlands. Social Impacts. The CIA will include a summary of the public outreach efforts conducted for the MCP project, including public input received from meetings/ workshops, scoping meetings, newsletters, mailings, and additional community outreach efforts. The CIA will establish the social setting of all jurisdictions within the study area that would experience socioeconomic impacts by identifying the existing and projected population and the relevant demographic characteristics of the study area, including: • Ethnicity • Age • Income • Low -mobility status (i.e., elderly and/or handicapped) This information will be drawn from the latest available demographic and socioeconomic information from State, regional, and local sources (e.g., U.S. 27 • 229 • • • Census 2000 and current SCAG projections). Demographic information for Riverside County will be utilized to the extent feasible from the CIA prepared for the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR (2002). The setting will identify communities (communities recognized by name and practice by local residents and officials) and immediate neighborhoods in the study area that may be affected by the project. This discussion will identify any substantial population changes that have recently occurred in ethnic, elderly, poor, or other demographic groups within the study area. The CIA will discuss the following items for each alternative under consideration: • Evaluate potential neighborhood -level disruptions or community cohesion of the various social groups as a result of the proposed action. • Properties that may become restricted in access or landlocked. • A description of transit facilities, highways, streets, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area and changes in travel patterns and accessibility (e.g., vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian) as a result of the proposed action. Commuting patterns within Riverside County will be taken from the CIA prepared for the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR (2002). • A description, location, and impact analysis of community services and facilities within the study area, including schools, recreation areas, churches, hospitals, police and fire protection facilities, etc. • Availability of parking facilities and any lots or parking spaces that would be affected by the proposed action. Impacts to minority populations and low-income populations will be evaluated in compliance with Executive Order 12989, Environmental Justice for Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations. The effects of the project on age -related, transit -dependent, minority, and low-income populations will be analyzed at the tract level to determine whether any social group is disproportionately impacted. Potential mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts to these populations will also be identified. Changes in low-income and minority employment opportunities will be discussed, and the relationship of the project to other federal actions that may serve or adversely affect the low-income or minority population will be identified. Relocation Impacts. The CIA will include a summary of displacements (residential and commercial), the availability of replacement housing, and relocation assistance as identified in the Draft Relocation Impact Report (see Task 3.5). The CIA will also include an evaluation of potential impacts to the local housing stock and employment centers within the study area based upon the proposed displacements. 28 230 Economic Impacts. The CIA will include a profile of economic conditions within the study area, including the most recent employment and income data. Data for Riverside County will be taken from the CIA prepared for the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR (2002), unless more recent economic data is available at the time of preparation. The CIA will discuss the following for each alternative under consideration: • Economic impacts on the regional and local economies, including the effects of the proposed action on development, local property and sales tax revenues, City expenditures, job opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales. (It is assumed that the most recent property tax information for each potentially displaced parcel will be obtained directly from the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer -Tax Collector or via Metroscan data provided by the project engineer.) • Impacts to the economic vitality of existing and future highway -related businesses (e.g., gasoline stations, motels, etc.) and the resultant impact, if any, on the local economy. • Impacts of the proposed action on established business districts and any opportunities to minimize or reduce such impacts by the public and/or private sectors. Product: 15 copies of Draft Community Impact Assessment 4.2.7 Floodplain Evaluation LSA will prepare a Floodplain Evaluation Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines (Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 17) based on the Location Hydraulic Study prepared by the engineering team. The report will discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures related to floodplain encroachment, flood -related hazards, natural or beneficial floodplain values, access interruption, and the community floodplain development plan. Product: 15 copies of Draft Floodplain Evaluation 4.2.8 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment LSA will prepare an ISA in accordance with the Caltrans Hazardous Waste Handbook and in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1597-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. The following tasks will be conducted as part of this evaluation: • LSA will conduct an agency records database search to identify hazardous waste sites located within one -quarter mile of each alternative (study area) and classified as hazardous waste under State law. The records search will also identify business types located within the study area that store, transfer, or utilize 29 • 231 • • • large quantities of hazardous materials. This information will be obtained from records maintained by federal, State, and local agencies. LSA will utilize a database service to perform this search. • LSA will request air quality records of violations from the local air quality management district for suspect sites within or directly adjacent to the parkway bandwidths. • Historic land use information for the study area will be reviewed to determine whether previous uses in the study area may have resulted in hazardous waste contamination. This information includes historic aerial photographs, historic USGS maps, oil and gas maps, available groundwater depth/flow data, City directories, County Assessor's data, and building permits. LSA will conduct a visual survey of the study area to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination. Access to private property or Caltrans right-of-way shall be provided by RCTC. • LSA will conduct a visual survey of the study area to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination. Access to private property or Caltrans right-of- way shall be provided by RCTC. • If hazardous waste sites are identified within the study area (via governmental records and/or the visual survey), LSA will review available public records at the appropriate oversight agency to determine the potential impact to the project. • LSA will prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations for each alternative based on the site survey and historical records review. Recommendations may include site investigations for sites that are considered contaminated sites by the applicable oversight agency. This scope of services does not include: • Review of private records or interviews with private property owners • Sampling for asbestos or aerially deposited lead, or other soil sampling • Conducting Preliminary Site Investigations (PSIs) involving soil or groundwater sampling These activities are not recommended until the design phase for the selected alternative due to the potentially large number of properties requiring evaluation (resulting in significant costs to RCTC) and the likelihood that presence or absence of hazardous waste contamination will not influence the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Product: 15 copies of Draft ISA 30 232 4.2.9 Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) LSA will prepare a VIA that evaluates the visual impact of each alternative consistent with FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988). This assessment shall define the existing project setting and viewshed of the study area and analyze significant visual resources. The potential visual impacts from project construction will be evaluated through the use of ground -level photographs from key views in the project study area and up to 30 view simulations of the project improvements. The improvements to be shown in the view simulations will be determined by LSA in coordination with the engineering team, RCTC, and Caltrans. Visual conditions and project impacts will be discussed from a qualitative perspective, but will be quantified similar to the scoring system used in the State Route 91 HOV Lane VIA (LSA, 2004). To assist in the assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the alternatives proposed within the MCP study area, existing viewsheds and visual resources will be characterized using three principles: (1) establish three basic viewing distance zones from identified vantage points; (2) identify and locate sensitive viewer groups, including viewers on the roadway; and (3) describe and characterize the visual character and quality of the project area. A description of these principles and their utilization will serve as the base for determining the severity of visual impacts associated with each of the proposed alternatives within the MCP study area. Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce significant visual impacts. The Engineering Team will provide input to the preparation of the view simulations to show landscape and hardscape treatments that can mitigate adverse visual impacts. Product: 15 copies of Draft VIA 4.2.10: Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 303(c) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303 ("Section 4(f)"), requires agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, when carrying out transportation programs or projects, to avoid impacts to certain parklands, recreation areas, historic sites, and wildlife refuges of national, State, or local significance. Specifically, Section 4(f) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project "requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land, and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting from the use." Additionally, parks that received federal funds through Section 6(0 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund may not be converted from recreational use without specific approval from the U.S. Department of Interior. 31 • 233 • • • Section 4(f) resources may be subject to either direct impacts, also known as "direct use," such as resource land acquisition, or indirect impacts, also known as proximity impacts to, or "constructive use" of the resource. Resources within the right-of-way under consideration for each alternative may be subject to either direct or constructive use. Resources outside the right-of-way may be subject to constructive use. The identification of potential resources was based on Section 4(f) guidelines published in the FHWA Section 4(0 Policy Paper, September 24, 1987 (Revised June 7, 1989) ("FHWA Policy Paper"). GIS mapping will be used to provide graphical representations of each of the alternatives, with maps identifying the relationship of each 4(0 resource with regard to the location of the proposed alternatives. Recreational resources, consisting of parks, reserves, and trails will be identified through research and grouped according to jurisdiction. Recreation and wildlife resources located within the study area will be identified using several GIS databases, including the existing MCP constraints database, the RCIP Existing Setting Report (LSA 1999), and the Thomas Brothers Map Guide GIS database (2001). In addition, parklands, schools, and recreational trails within individual incorporated cities were identified using City General Plans and the Riverside County Regional Trails Map. Since public school playgrounds may also serve public recreational purposes, existing and planned public school sites will also be considered. Recreation facilities within the study area will be mapped; specifically, resources within the right-of-way for each alternative and within approximately 500 feet of the right-of-way (areas that may be subject to constructive use) of each alternative. Reserve areas proposed, as part of the MSHCP and recreational resources identified in the City and County General Plans will be addressed. Avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm will be a key part of the evaluation. The Section 4(0 Evaluation will document how Section 4(0 resources were identified as early as possible in the study process so that avoidance options could be fully considered during alternatives development. Product: 20 copies of Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation 4.2.11 Public Services and Utilities Existing public services and facilities conditions, as well as the ability of public service agencies and their facilities to support projected growth, will be documented based on review of existing literature and mapping (including relevant portions of CETAP Tier1 data) and field surveys as required. In Task 6.0, the Engineering Team will document the presence of existing utilities, such as water lines, sewer lines, natural gas pipelines, aqueducts, and electrical, cable, and cell phone infrastructure. The Engineering Team will contact utility service providers for 32 234 additional information regarding any planned expansion of service and/or capital improvements. The Engineering Team will also identify the potential impacts of each alternative on existing and planned infrastructure. LSA will document the existing public service providers in the study area, including fire and emergency medical services, police/sheriff services, landfill capacity, hospitals, schools, and libraries. LSA will contact service providers for additional information regarding any planned expansion of service and/or capital improvements, and will identify the potential impacts of each alternative on existing and planned public services. Appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed, if needed. Product: 10 copies of Public Services Technical Report 4.2.12 Water Quality Assessment Report LSA will prepare a Water Quality Assessment Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines that discusses watershed characteristics, groundwater hydrology, regulatory requirements, pollutants of concern, and receiving waters conditions, impairments, objectives, and beneficial uses. The report will also discuss Design Pollution Prevention BMPs, Construction Site BMPs, and Treatment BMPs that are applicable to the project alternatives per Caltrans requirements. Each alternative's potential impact on water quality will be evaluated and the mitigation measures necessary to prevent adverse water quality impacts will be identified. For this study, LSA will use the Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) to be prepared by the engineering team in Task 6.0. Product: 15 copies of Draft Water Quality Assessment Report 4.2.13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LSA will prepare a draft MMRP in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for use in ensuring implementation of the mitigation measures for the project. The MMRP will be used in the design and construction of improvements for the selected MCP alternative. For each mitigation measure the MMRP will include a list of the following items: a description of the mitigation measure, the timing of implementation, the performance objectives, the requirements for verification of compliance, the party responsible for verifying compliance, and a summary of the potential impacts of the mitigation measures. Potential environmental effects of proposed mitigation measures include indirect traffic effects, and the impacts of land acquisition, among others. Product: 10 copies of Draft MMRP 33 • 235 • • • THIS ITEM REMOVED FROM SCOPE OF WORK Task 4.4 Final Technical Studies In this task, the technical studies and documents prepared in Task 4.2 will be revised in response to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA comments. Final technical studies will be prepared that will accompany the submittal of the Draft EIS/EIR for approval to circulate. The ability to secure Caltrans and FHWA approval of technical studies on this second and final submittal is predicated upon: 1) the draft reports in Task 4.2 being submitted as complete reports with no contingencies or placeholders based upon information pending from the Traffic, Engineering, or Right -of -Way tasks, and, 2) a rigid review process involving the Consultant, RCTC, and Caltrans to meet to discuss and agree upon report changes, with no additional comments being made by Caltrans or FHWA once the revisions are agreed to at these meetings (Thirty copies of each for use during public review period.) For budget purposes, we have assumed that a maximum of 32 sites will require the level of evaluation described in 4.2.2, with a contingency budget provided under this task for evaluation of 16 additional sites. 4.5 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 4.5.1 Prepare Administrative Draft EIS/EIR The results of the technical studies will be presented in an Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. LSA will prepare the administrative Draft EIS/EIR, incorporating the findings of the technical studies for submittal to RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans for review The EIS/EIR will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as well as the most current document formats and guidance posted on Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference Web site. The Executive Summary will not be included in the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR in order to reduce duplicative revisions within the document. Both short-term construction and long-term operational effects of each alternative will be considered. The Administrative Draft EIS/EIR will also address indirect and cumulative effects of each of the alternatives, CEQA considerations of level of significance of impacts, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. 34 236 The EIS/EIR will be organized in a manner intended to reduce the presentation of duplicative information to the extent feasible for areas where the alternatives overlap. Assumption: 20 copies of Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Product: Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 4.5.2 Prepare Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR LSA will revise the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR based on comments received from RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans, as well as other members of the consultant team as appropriate, and will submit the revised Draft EIS/EIR to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA (via Caltrans) for review. The second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR will include all information described above, as well as the Executive Summary. Assumption: 20 copies of Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Product: Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Task 4.6 Prepare Draft EIS/EIR Task 4.6.1 Prepare Draft EIS/EIR for Approval to Circulate (One Copy for Signature) LSA will revise the Draft EIS/EIR per comments received from RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans on the Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR and will prepare one copy of the EIS/EIR for RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA signature for approval to circulate the document for public review. Assumption: 5 copies of Draft EIS/EIR for approval 200 copies of Draft EIS/EIR to be prepared for distribution Product: Draft EIS/EIR Task 4.6.2 Public Review LSA will prepare a draft public distribution list with input from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. The Draft EIS/EIR will be circulated for public review once the list has been approved by the RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare a draft Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for publication by the public outreach team. LSA will prepare and file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. This scope of services includes attendance at three public hearings during the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIR. 35 • 237 • • Products: Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion, Public Distribution List Task 4.7 Prepare Response to Comments The Draft Response to Comments document will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare responses for its areas of responsibility and will coordinate with other consultant team members, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA to prepare responses for their respective areas of responsibility. The comments will be scanned into a *.pdf format to facilitate integration into the Draft Final EIS/EIR. The responses will be prepared in a tabular format similar to that included in the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Tier 1 Final EIS/EIR, and will include both general responses to broad (often repeated) topics of concern as well as specific responses to specific comments. Budgeting for responses to comments is difficult to project, since the scope of public and agency comments/concerns is not entirely known at this time. For preliminary budgeting purposes, we estimate that a total of 1,000 letters will be received. Each comment letter will be numbered and scanned. It is estimated that there will be a total of 3,000 comments within these letters. Each individual comment will be labeled on the letter and listed in the Response to Comments table. Each response will be included in the table as well. It is also estimated that 100 of the 3,000 comments will require detailed responses as specific comments. We have estimated the need for 1,280 professional staff hours and 280 support staff hours (Graphics, Word Processing/Editing, and Clerical) to complete this task. These specifications and any necessary adjustments to the Response to Comments budget will be reviewed with RCTC prior to initiating this task. Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Response to Comments. 4.8 Draft Final EIS/EIR Following review of the Draft Responses to Comments, LSA will prepare a Draft Final EIS/EIR, which will incorporate changes to the EIS/EIR sections consistent with the responses to comments. The Draft Final EIS/EIR will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. Assumption: 30 copies of the Draft Final EIS/EIR. 4.9 Final EIS/EIR Based on comments received on the Draft Final EIS/EIR, LSA will prepare the Final EIS/EIR, including a Notice of Determination (NOD) in accordance with CEQA requirements, including an $850 California Department of Fish and Game -filing fee. 36 238 LSA will produce copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to commenting agencies prior to certification of the Final EIS/EIR by RCTC. With assistance from LSA, RCTC legal counsel (BB&K) will have primary responsibility for preparing Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which will be adopted by RCTC as part of the Commission's action to certify the Final EIR. Assumption: 150 copies of Final EIS/EIR Product: Final EIS/EIR 4.10 Prepare Record of Decision LSA will prepare a Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA for review. Based on comments received, a Final ROD will be prepared for submittal to FHWA for review and approval. FHWA will publish the ROD in the Federal Register. Assumption: 10 Copies of the Draft ROD 4.11 HCP Amendments and MSHCP Consistency Determination The consistency analysis with the Western Riverside County MSHCP (MSHCP) will be undertaken at two levels. The first level of analysis will be for CEQA/NEPA purposes and will analyze in general terms the relationship of the various alternatives under consideration in the EIS/EIR to the goals, objectives and biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs. The second level of analysis will occur following identification of a Preferred Alternative and will incorporate the detailed consistency analysis called for in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP. Scopes of services for both levels of analysis are provided below. Relationship of MSHCP and Other Relevant HCPs to Alternatives Considered in the EIS/EIR During this task, all of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS/EIR will be analyzed with respect to the goals, objectives, and biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs. The focus of this analysis will be to provide complete CEQA/NEPA documentation for all of the alternatives addressing the potential effects of the various alternatives on regional resource conservation plans and processes, including the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP, and the SKR HCP. This analysis will outline the goals, objectives, and biological considerations of these regional resource conservation plans and describe the effects of the proposed alternatives on the ability to achieve the identified goals and objectives. For example, a particular alternative alignment may traverse an area desirable for conservation under the MSHCP or relevant HCPs. The analysis 37 • 239 • • • will identify whether or not the particular alternative would interfere with the biological goals identified in the MSHCP or relevant HCP with respect to specific species considerations or broader reserve design considerations such as wildlife movement, connectivity, or habitat fragmentation. The analysis will consider features incorporated in the design of the particular alternative that may avoid or minimize impacts and will identify significant impacts that may not be able to be avoided or minimized. If determined to be appropriate, the relative merits of the various alternatives with respect to their relationship to the MSHCP and relevant HCPs can be summarized in matrix format in the analysis. The product of this task will be a Technical Memorandum prepared in a format suitable for incorporation in the Draft EIS/EIR. MSHCP Consistency Analysis This task will include a thorough and comprehensive MSHCP consistency analysis of the identified Preferred Alternative. The content and format of the analysis will be dependent upon the Preferred Alternative selected. If the selected Preferred Alternative is north of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed as a "standard" Covered Activity in the MSHCP and will proceed generally as outlined in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP. If the selected Preferred Alternative is south of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed in accordance with the "Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening" process described in Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP. It should be noted that Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP states that this process may be considered at the time it is determined that an alignment north of Lake Mathews is not feasible. It is assumed that the feasibility determination will be documented by the Jacobs Engineering Team under this scenario. Key features of the consistency analysis process under both the Section 7.3.5 and Section 7.2.3 approaches include analysis of the project with respect to the following: Effects on Habitat, Effects on Covered Species, Effects on Core Areas, Effects on Linkages and Constrained Linkages, Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration and Management, Effects on Ecotones, and Effects on and Consistency with existing HCPs and/or NCCPs. In addition, the analysis will consider the degree to which the proposed alternative incorporates the siting and design criteria incorporated in the MSHCP, including guidelines for wildlife crossings, siting guidelines, construction guidelines, and BMPs. The consistency analyses will also incorporate biological equivalency determinations. Under the Section 7.2.3 process, the consistency analysis will be subject to review and concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies. The Section 7.2.3 process is considered to be more comprehensive and time-consuming than the Section 7.3.5 process and for budgeting purposes, the level of effort required for the Section 7.2.3 process is assumed. 38 240 As described in Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP, it is assumed that approval and implementation of an alignment south of Lake Mathews will require identification and acquisition of biological lands for mitigation purposes in addition to the 153,000 acres of Additional Conservation Lands identified in the MSHCP. The scope of services for this task includes examination of up to 3,000 acres of additional lands that could be considered for this purpose. As part of this task, we will initially identify potential areas to be considered for acquisition for review by the client and Wildlife Agencies as appropriate. Biological information for these areas will be assembled based on existing available information and ground-truthing/survey data subject to access permission. Information obtained during the analysis will be assembled in the form of a mitigation package for consideration by RCTC and the Wildlife Agencies. Not included in the scope of services are specific tasks needed for acquisition of these lands, including appraisals, etc. As stated in the MSHCP, if the Wildlife Agencies' concurrence is not obtained during the Section 7.2.3 process, a major amendment to the MSHCP will be required for development of a project alternative south of Lake Mathews. Such a major amendment is not included in the scope of services. The product of this task will be an MSHCP consistency analysis report, including text, graphics, and appendices suitable for inclusion in the Appendix to the Draft EIS/EIR if appropriate and suitable for independent review and consideration by RCTC and the Wildlife Agencies. It is assumed that this task will include considerable meetings and interaction with numerous parties, including RCTC, the Wildlife Agencies, RCA, County and City staff, MWD, and others, and a substantial level of effort for such consideration is included in the scope of services and budget. It should be noted that the Section 7.2.3 consistency analysis allows 60 days for formal Wildlife Agencies concurrence and review of the MSHCP consistency findings for an alternative alignment south of Lake Mathews. Considerable interaction with the Wildlife Agencies and RCA staff will be necessary prior to beginning this 60 -day clock in order to increase the chances of a positive outcome, and a substantial level of effort for this interaction is incorporated in the scope of services. Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP Amendment It is anticipated that an amendment to the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP will be required regardless of which alternative is selected, as called for in Section 3.G.4 of the HCP/NCCP, Changes in Projects and Activities in the Plan Area. Section 3.G.4 states that such amendments "must comply with the impact minimization measures specified in the Lake Mathews Plan and will be accomplished in coordination with the Lake Mathews Reserve Management Committee. Mitigation will be required as discussed in the Lake Mathews Plan for these changes." Mitigation guidelines are generally contained in Section 3.0 of the HCP/NCCP but discussion with MWD and 39 • 241 • • • the Lake Mathews Reserve Management Committee will likely be needed to determine how those might apply to the proposed project. Specific procedures for amendments are not identified in the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP. However, Chapter 6, Section G of the USFWS HCP Handbook (November 1996) states that HCP amendments will generally "be treated in the same way as the original permit application." This typically involves a public review process and associated NEPA documentation. Based on the understanding that both MWD and the RCHCA are preparers of and signatories to the HCP/NCCP, it is unclear whether it would be necessary for one or both of those entities to initiate an amendment to the HCP/NCCP, or if an amendment could be initiated by another entity. These issues will be considered and resolved in consultation with MWD, RCHCA, and the Wildlife Agencies. While much of the work needed for the MSHCP consistency analysis described in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis will likely be directly transferable to the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment process, the degree to which additional work will be needed for the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment process cannot be determined at this time. Every effort will be made to make maximum use of the MSHCP Consistency Analysis work to avoid duplication of effort for the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment work. SKR HCP Findings and/or Amendment The degree to which an amendment to the SKR HCP will be required is uncertain at this time, given uncertainties regarding the selected alternative and specific interpretations of various components of the existing HCP. Chapter 5, Section C.1.s of the SKR HCP identifies circumstances under which public facility improvements such as roadway improvements that implement an adopted Circulation Element are covered by the HCP. Chapter 5, Section E.5 of the HCP describes the various amendment processes, including administrative amendments. At a minimum, findings will be required demonstrating consistency of the proposed project with the SKR HCP. The possibility exists that an amendment to the HCP will be needed. As with the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment process, the scope, nature, and extent of any HCP amendment cannot be determined at this time but may involve a public review process and associated NEPA documentation. It is assumed that much of the MSHCP consistency analysis work will be applicable to any SKR HCP findings or amendments that are required and every effort will be made to avoid duplication of work. It is also assumed that RCHCA would be a willing applicant for an amendment if such an amendment is needed. 40 242 Report Preparation Relationship of MSHCP and Other Relevant HCPs to Alternatives Considered in the EIS/EIR The results of the analysis of the results of the project alternatives and their relationship to the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs will be compiled in a Technical Memorandum prepared in a format suitable for incorporation in the EIS/EIR. MSHCP Consistency Analysis The content and format of the comprehensive MSHCP consistency analysis will be dependent upon the Preferred Alternatives selected. If the selected Preferred Alternative is not south of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed as a "standard" Covered Activity in the MSHCP and will proceed generally as outlined in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP. If the selected Preferred Alternative is south of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed in accordance with the "Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening" process described in Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP. The product will be an MSHCP consistency analysis report including text, graphics, and appendices suitable for inclusion in the Appendix to the Draft EIS/EIR if appropriate and suitable for independent review and consideration by RCTC and the Wildlife Agencies. PARTIAL CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM Lake Mathews HCPINCCP Amendment Specific procedures for amendments are not identified in the Lake Mathews HCPINCCP. Therefore, it is unclear at this time as to the exact type of documentation that will be acceptable for the amendment. However, Chapter 6, Section G of the USFWS HCP Handbook (November 1996) states that HCP amendments will generally "be treated in the same way as the original permit application." This typically involves a public review process and associated NEPA documentation. CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM SKR HCP Findings and/or Amendment It is unclear at this time as to the exact type of documentation that will be needed for the SKR HCP amendment. However, Chapter 6, Section G of the USFWS HCP Handbook (November 1996) states that HCP amendments will generally "be treated in the same way as the original permit application." This typically involves a public review process and associated NEPA documentation. 41 • 243 • • • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK 5 — TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 5.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 5.1 Detailed Traffic Forecasts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) forecasts resulting from Phase 1 of the MCP project will be expanded to cover a broader geographic area and will also be refined to produce AM and PM peak -hour forecasts for use in the detailed traffic engineering, environmental analysis, and engineering design tasks in Phase 2. It is assumed that separate traffic forecasts will be prepared for 2030 conditions for each of eight project alternatives. Detailed traffic forecasts will be prepared as described below. 5.1.1 System Interchanges AM and PM peak -hour traffic forecasts will be prepared for the MCP system interchanges at Interstate 15 (1-15), Interstate 215 (1-215), and State Route 79 (SR - 79). In addition, the system interchange at I-15/State Route 91 (SR -91) will be analyzed to determine the impact of the project on this interchange. Traffic forecasts for all mainline segments, ramps, and collector -distributor roads in the interchange areas will be included. 5.1.2 Parkway/Freeway Mainline Directional AM and PM peak -hour traffic forecasts will be prepared for the MCP mainline and all auxiliary and collector -distributor roads, if any, and the HOV facility between 1-15 and SR -79. Traffic forecasts will be prepared at a similar level of detail for crossing freeways (referenced below) that are directly affected by the project: • 1-15, SR 91 to Weirick • 1-215, Oleander to Placentia • SR -79, Gilman Springs Road to MCP 5.1.3 Arterial Streets Arterial street segments will be analyzed based on ADT conditions. The traffic model runs from Phase 1 will be the source of data for the arterial street traffic forecasts, with selected post -processing of the model results. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that ADT forecasts will be prepared for 200 arterial roadway segments. 1 244 5.1.4 Intersections For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that AM and PM peak -hour intersection turning movements will be prepared for 130 intersections. The study area will include the following: • MCP service interchanges with crossing arterial streets (two intersections per interchange) and one key intersection north and south of the MCP service interchange • 1-215 service interchanges with Oleander, the existing Cajalco Expressway/Ramona Expressway, and Placentia (two intersections per interchange) and one key intersection east and west of the 1-215 service interchange • 1-15 service interchanges with Magnolia, Ontario, El Cerrito, existing Cajalco Road, and Weirick (two intersections per interchange) and one key intersection east and west of the 1-15 service interchange • SR -79 service interchange at Gilman Springs (two intersections) • MCP intersections with local streets (for alternatives in which MCP has at -grade intersections with local streets) and one key intersection north and south of the MCP intersection • Additional intersections as necessary to analyze project impacts to be determined during the course of the study, up to a total of 130 Assumptions: • Four system interchanges, 130 intersections, and 200 street segments will be included in the study area • The study area will also include the mainline segments of the MCP from 1-15 to SR -79, 1-15 from SR 91 to Weirick, 1-215 from Oleander to Placentia, and SR -79 from Gilman Springs to the MCP • Eight project alternatives will be analyzed Products: • AM peak -hour, PM peak -hour, and ADT traffic forecasts for a study area to include 4 system interchanges, 130 intersections, 200 street segments, and 4 of 8 project alternatives 2 245 • • 5.2 Traffic Technical Report A traffic technical report will be prepared to document the traffic engineering analysis for inclusion in the project environmental documents. The study area will be the same as the study area defined in Task 5.1. The report will include the components described below. 5.2.1 Traffic Engineering Methodology The methodology for the preparation of the traffic analysis will be described, including the following: • Definition of alternatives • Travel demand modeling process • Study area • Detailed traffic forecasts • Capacity analysis • Significance thresholds for traffic impacts • Recommended improvements/mitigation • Level of significance after mitigation 5.2.2 Roadway Capacity Analysis Roadway capacity analysis will be conducted using methods outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for the MCP mainline, system interchanges, and intersections. Arterial street segments will be analyzed using daily street segment capacities documented in the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). 5.2.3 Recommended Improvements/Mitigation The project team will work with Caltrans, RCTC, Riverside County, and local cities to establish significance thresholds for the analysis of traffic impacts. Wherever these thresholds are exceeded, roadway and intersection improvement strategies and/or mitigation measures will be recommended. The roadway improvements/mitigation measures will be described in sufficient detail to provide a clear understanding of the necessary improvements and their feasibility at a preliminary level. In some cases, sketches will be provided for clarification. Scaled drawings will not be prepared. In the analysis of recommended roadway improvements/mitigation, the base case for lane geometry assumptions will be the General Plans of Riverside County and the cities within the study area. The roadway lane geometry specified as the General Plan Buildout will form the basis for the No Project traffic analysis. 3 246 5.2.4 Administrative Draft Traffic Technical Report The analysis described above will be documented in a technical report. The administrative draft will be prepared for review by FHWA, Caltrans, RCTC, and project consulting team members. Assumption: 50 copies of the Administrative Draft Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Product: Administrative Draft Traffic Technical Report 5.2.5 Draft Traffic Technical Report A second draft of the traffic technical report will be prepared to respond to comments on the administrative draft. Assumption: 50 copies of the Draft Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Product: Draft Traffic Technical Report 5.2.6 Final Traffic Technical Report The final traffic technical report will be included as an Appendix to the project environmental documents. It is assumed that 50 copies will be needed for distribution to FHWA, Caltrans, RCTC, and project consultant team staff. One original will be prepared for copying and distribution to the public by other members of the project team. Assumption: 50 copies of the Final Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Assumptions: • The study area for the traffic technical report will be as described in Task 5.1 • The basis for the capacity analysis will be the latest version of the HCM Manual for the MCP and crossing freeway mainlines, system interchanges, and intersections, and the RCIP for roadway segments • 50 copies of the Administrative Draft Report, Draft Report, and Final Report will be needed Products: • Administrative Draft Report, Draft Report, and Final Report 5.3 Project Staging: 2020 Analysis 4 247 • • ry+� iiOCOMOp irawiptollatinu {,J)ruuai.4siort The development of detailed traffic forecasts, performance of capacity analysis, and the preparation of recommended improvements, as described above, will be repeated to analyze project staging for the interim 2020 conditions. The traffic engineering consulting team will work with the engineering design team to develop base conditions and assumptions for each of the horizon years listed above. The resulting traffic analysis will determine whether these base conditions will be adequate to handle traffic demands for each of the respective future year conditions. If it is determined that the base assumptions are not adequate, the traffic team will make recommendations to the Engineering Team for necessary geometric or system modifications. The study area will be limited to the areas that are directly affected by the project, as detailed below: • MCP system interchanges at 1-15, 1-215, and SR -79 • Mainline segments of the MCP from 1-15 to SR -79, 1-15 from SR 91 to Weirick, 1- 215 from Oleander to Placentia, and SR -79 from Gilman Springs to the MCP • MCP service interchanges with crossing arterial streets (two intersections per interchange) • 1-215 service interchanges with Oleander, Existing Cajalco Expressway/Ramona Expressway, and Placentia (two intersections per interchange) • 1-15 service interchanges with El Cerrito, Existing Cajalco Road, and Weirick (two intersections per interchange) • SR 79 service interchange at Gilman Springs (two intersections) • MCP intersections with local streets (for alternatives in which MCP has at -grade intersections with local streets) For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the study area will include three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, 1-215, and SR -79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments. 5.3.1 Project Staging —Model Runs In order to prepare project staging analysis, traffic forecast model runs will be needed for interim 2020 conditions, as described below. 5.3.1.1 Definition of Alternatives The traffic technical team will work with the project team to develop clear definitions for the project alternatives, including geometric assumptions for the MCP for the interim horizon year condition. 5 248 5.3.1.2 Land Use Forecasts The traffic team will develop zonal socioeconomic data for the focused project area and will develop assumptions for the interim facility at 2020. This will be done through the review and analysis of existing and 2030 socioeconomic data and evaluation of development trends in the study area from available information. The project team will coordinate with RCTC, Riverside County, and local jurisdictions to the extent possible for this task. The socioeconomic data for outside the focused study area will be developed through a generalized approach of coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other agencies and possible factoring between existing and 2030 conditions and available regional data for prior RTP efforts for the interim conditions. 5.3.1.3 Network Revisions The traffic technical team will work with the project team to develop clear definitions for the geometric assumptions for the MCP mainline (facility type and number of lanes, mainline and HOV, etc.), as well as all its access points and the connecting arterial system for each of the project alternatives for each interim horizon year condition. This will be based on assumptions from the previous forecasts and the engineering and planning judgment of the team members, as agreed by the local jurisdiction staffs. The team will code the appropriate network details and will develop highway networks for each of the scenarios. 5.3.1.4 Model Run Preparation The traffic team will prepare all coded networks for all alternatives for each of the interim years and will prepare the zonal socioeconomic input data for the project focus area and the region. These input data will be submitted to SCAG for the development of the assignment trip tables for each of the interim years. The traffic team will obtain the trip tables from SCAG to perform the traffic assignment forecasts for the alternatives. 5.3.1.5 Model Run Quality Control The traffic team will work closely with SCAG to ensure the quality of the input data and the output trip tables for model assignments. The team will perform appropriate levels of quality control at each step of the modeling process and specifically once the model assignments are completed to ensure the accuracy and reasonableness of the model forecasts and will adjust as necessary. 5.3.2 Project Staging —Detailed Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts will be prepared for AM peak -hour, PM peak -hour, and ADT traffic conditions for three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, I- 6 • • 249 • • • 215, and SR -79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments for each of the six project staging alternatives. 5.3.3 Project Staging —Roadway Capacity Analysis Capacity analysis will be conducted as described in Subtask 5.2.2 for three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, 1-215, and SR -79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments for each of the six project staging alternatives. 5.3.4 Project Staging —Recommended Improvements In cases where the roadway capacity analysis indicates the need for improvements beyond those assumed in the base case for each alternative, roadway improvements will be recommended using the methodology described in Subtask 5.2.3. 5.3.5 Project Staging —Technical Report The project staging analysis will not be included in the project environmental documents. Instead, a stand-alone report will be prepared to assist RCTC, the project team, and various review agencies in making decisions regarding project staging. Development of the staging technical report will include an administrative draft report, a draft report, and a final report, which will include responses to comments from the previous drafts. It is assumed that 50 copies of each will be needed. Assumptions: • Project staging analysis will be conducted for the preferred alternative for 2020 • The study area for the project staging analysis will consist of three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, 1-215, and SR -79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments • The basis for the capacity analysis will be the latest version of the HCM for system interchanges and intersections and the Riverside County Integrated Project for roadway segments • 50 copies of the Administrative Draft Report, Draft Report, and Final Report will be needed Products: • Administrative Draft Project Phasing Report, Draft Report, and Final Report CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 5.4 Traffic Simulation 7 250 An operational and traffic flow simulation of the MCP corridor will be prepared for the selected project alternative. This will include preparation of simulation models, analysis of the results, and preparation of an animation feature that could be used for technical and public meetings. For thqourpose of this scope of services, it is assumed that the operational results of the traffic simulation model(s) will not be used for geometric design purposes. 5.4.1 Study Area Definition The study area for the traffic simulation will be defined. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the study area will consist of one system interchange and two local interchanges to be selected during the course of the project. 5.4.2 Model Selection A simulation model or models will be selected, based on discussions with the project team, RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans, and other interested agencies. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the simulation will be prepared using the CORSIM model for system interchanges and the Sim -Traffic model for local interchanges. 5.4.3 Data Collection Most simulation models require input data that goes above and beyond the data needed for traditional traffic engineering analysis. Additional data will be collected to support the operation of the selected traffic simulation model(s). 5.4.4 Preliminary Model Preparation Preliminary simulation models will be prepared for the study areas defined in Subtask 5.4.1. 5.4.5 Model CalibrationlValidation The simulation models will be checked for accuracy using the project team's judgment and comparisons to other traffic engineering analyses conducted for the project. 5.4.6 Final Model Preparation The revised simulation models resulting from Task 5.4.5 will be prepared for presentation at technical and/or public meetings. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the simulation models will be presented at up to six technical meetings and six public meetings, outside of the meetings documented elsewhere in this scope of services. 8 251 • • • Assumptions: • The study area for traffic simulation will include one system interchange and two service interchanges to be selected during the course of the project • The CORSIM traffic simulation model will be used for system interchanges and the Sim -Traffic model for local interchanges • The simulation models will be presented at six technical meetings and six public meetings, outside of the meetings documented elsewhere in this scope of services • The simulation models will not be used for geometric design purposes Products: • Traffic simulation models for one system interchange and two service interchanges to be selected during the course of the project 5.5 Coordination With the Riverside County/Orange County Project and SR -79 Project During the MCP project, studies will be ongoing by separate consulting teams for the adjacent Riverside County/Orange County Major Investment Study (RC/OC Project) and the State Route 79 Corridor Study (SR -79 Project). Coordination will be required with the traffic engineering project teams for these projects. Coordination will be necessary for consistency of traffic forecasts as well as traffic analysis inputs to geometric design and assumptions of connecting facilities between the MCP Project and RC/OC Project and the MCP Project and SR -79 Project. Specific assumptions to insure consistency are listed below. 5.5.1 Adjoining Project Meetings This task assumes attendance at 12 staff -level meetings to provide coordination between the project teams for the RC/OC and SR -79 projects. 5.5.2 Provide Data To RC/OC and SR -79 Project Teams Technical reports, traffic data, traffic forecasts, and other data will be provided to the RC/OC and SR -79 project teams, as requested and approved by RCTC. 5.5.3 Review RC/OC and SR-79Project Team Interim Products This task includes time to review interim products prepared by the RC/OC and SR - 79 project teams. Assumptions: • Coordination with the RC/OC and SR -79 project teams will require attendance at 12 staff -level meetings 9 252 Products: • Attendance at 12 staff -level meetings • Provision of technical data to RC/OC and SR -79 project teams • Review of interim products prepared by RC/OC and SR -79 project teams • • 10 253 • • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 6 — ENGINEERING MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 6.0 ENGINEERING 6.1 Preliminary Engineering Based on the current six build alternatives, the Consultant will further refine the horizontal and vertical alignments to minimize environmental impacts and reduce construction costs. The consultant will prepare a preliminary alignment plan for each of the six build alternatives in metric units at 1:1000 scale for agencies' review. Once the alignment plan is reviewed and accepted by RCTC, County of Riverside, the involved local city jurisdictions, FHWA and other regulatory agencies, it is important that the alignment for each alternative be frozen at this stage. Based on the frozen alignments, the consultant will assess the area of impact for the environmental processing and documentation, the right-of-way requirements, and utility conflicts. 6.1.1 Ultimate Buildout Based on the approved alignment plan, the consultant will prepare preliminary layout plans, profiles, and typical sections for each alternative in metric units at 1:1000 scale. The preliminary plans will be prepared to meet 2030 traffic demand as the ultimate buildout condition including number of lane on the mainline and interchange configurations. These preliminary plans will be developed based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual 5th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, and other applicable county and cities design standards. Any nonstandard features will be identified and discussed at the PDT meetings to assess options for eliminating the nonstandard features and gain concurrence for requesting design exceptions. All proposed nonstandard features will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets for Caltrans review and approval. Products: • Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1:1000 Scale gib 6.1.2 Stage 1 Construction 1 The interim buildout condition is defined to meet 2020 traffic demand. It is assumed that the interim buildout will be at the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the ultimate buildout but with modifications at the system -to -system interchange areas and at the local arterial crossing areas. The initial stage buildout plans will be developed only for the preferred alternative. The preliminary layout, profile and typical section will be developed for each alternative based on the interim condition in metric units at 1:1000 scale. These preliminary plans will meet Caltrans Highway Design Manual 5th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, and other applicable County and cities design standards. Any nonstandard features will be identified and discussed at the PDT meetings to assess options for eliminating the nonstandard features and gain concurrence for requesting design exceptions. All proposed nonstandard features will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets. Products: • Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1:1000 Scale 6.2 Value Analysis A formal Value Analysis (VA) will be required in accordance with FHWA policies; that is, any project costing in excess of $25 million shall be subject to a formal VA study. The priority of the VA would be the system interchanges, service interchanges, and alignment. Subsequent to this study and following delivery of the pertinent technical information required for a VA study, the formal study will be scheduled utilizing Caltrans on -call VA study facilitators. This effort is estimated to take one to two weeks to complete, not including the report and follow-up responses to the study. It is anticipated that the resulting VA will satisfy the requirements of the FHWA for this project. The formal VA study will consist of a team of reviewers who have not participated in the project yet are familiar with the requirements of the design for the project. The members of the VA study team will be determined by RCTC and Caltrans. To initiate the process, the Consultant shall prepare a document for distribution to the VA team consisting of the following: • Conceptual alignment plans • Traffic study information with peak hour and directional movements for each interchange 2 • 255 • • • • Utility mapping • Right -of -Way information The VA team will review this information with the project team to discuss options for improving the quality of the project, resolve conflicts with stakeholders on the project, provide alternative solutions to difficult transportation issues, and identify cost -saving alternatives to the project. The Consultant shall prepare responses to the comments received from the VA Studies and deliver a report identifying those if any of the recommendations that should be implemented or should be further evaluated for consideration. Discussion for each of the alternative solutions offered is required to completely address each option. At the conclusion of the VA study, the Consultant shall be prepared to identify the final geometry for the project alternatives and include them as appropriate in the Project Report. Products: Formal VA Study Reports 6.3 Engineering Technical Studies/Reports Engineering technical studies/reports will be prepared for each alternative based on the preliminary plans to address the potential engineering issues and support the Project Report. Draft reports will be prepared for review by Caltrans, the County, cities, and other regulatory agencies where applicable. Final reports will be included in the Draft Project Report and Final Project Report. 6.3.1 Utilities The Consultant shall locate major utility features using collected utility data such as utility company as -built plans and Caltrans utility maps. Once the utility information is plotted on the preliminary layout plans, the plans will be sent to the utility companies to verify the existing utility locations. With all the utility locations confirmed, the Consultant will contact all affected utility companies to identify the utility conflicts. During this phase, the Consultant will coordinate with the utility company for potential relocation and to determine role and responsibility in the next phases. Product: Utility Maps 6.3.2 Right -of -Way Engineering Support 3 256 Based on the geometric plans developed in Task 6.1 Preliminary Engineering for each of the six build alternatives and a thorough review of the existing right-of-way maps, parcel maps, tract maps, records of survey and assessor's maps, we will prepare right-of-way requirement drawings that clearly delineate the proposed right of way lines and the additional rights of way that would be required. The right of way requirements will include full and partial acquisitions, temporary construction easements and permanent easements. In addition, we will obtain the known future development information along the proposed alignments, and convert the tentative tract maps to Metric Units and include them in the right of way base map. Although the Right of Way Base Map was established in the Phase 1 effort, several spot field survey may be required to further evaluate the right of way impact. Once the Right of Way Requirement Plans are completed, the plans will be used to evaluate right of way impact and prepare cost estimates for each alternative. The appropriate data will be assembled and reported in Right -of -Way Data Sheet format as defined in Exhibit 01-01-01 of Caltrans Project Development Manual. Products: Right -of -Way Requirement Plans at 1:1000 Scale 6.3.3 Cost Estimates The Consultant will prepare preliminary construction cost estimates for each build alternative. The estimates will follow the format defined in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual and will address the major cost items such as roadway, structures (on a cost per square meter basis), retaining walls, maintenance of traffic, potential environmental mitigation, and right-of-way (per ROW Data Sheets). Costs will be based on accepted planning estimate unit prices. Products: Cost Estimate for each of the six build alternatives 6.3.4 Structures Advance Planning Studies The Structures Advance Planning Studies (APS) will be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans practice for such studies and will depict the most feasible bridge alternative and layout for the proposed crossings. The APS will include a cost estimate to give an order of magnitude cost for the bridge structure. Multiple alternatives for the bridge type are not required for the APS. We assume that the APS will be prepared only for the Preferred Alternative. Non Standard walls are not included at this time. Products: Structures APS Reports (General Plans and APS Checklists) 4 • 257 • • • 6.3.5 Drainage Report The Consultant shall prepare a conceptual drainage report for the project. The report shall include the identification of the primary watercourses required to be conveyed through the project. The identification of the design discharge for each of these watercourses shall be provided for by consulting with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and retrieving their current ultimate design discharge for these facilities. A separate hydrology study for these watercourses is not a part of this scope of services. Once the design discharges have been identified, the Consultant shall prepare a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the bridge and/or culvert crossings as may be proposed by the Consultant for the project. This analysis shall be prepared incorporating acceptable engineering software (HEC-RAS, WSPG, etc.) to demonstrate the appropriate conveyance facility for the various crossings. The hydraulic analysis shall be complete enough to identify those impacts to the existing floodplain as may be a result of the proposed project crossing. Analysis excludes determination of channel stability, scour and erosion analysis for each stream crossing. On -site drainage facilities for the corridor shall be evaluated and identified in a qualitative manner. Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is not required for this phase of the work. For determining the extent of on -site drainage improvements, the Consultant shall identify sump locations (if any) and the appropriate conveyance facility for the sumps. The Consultant shall identify discharge locations for the on -site drainage features, incorporating them into the applicable best management practices (BMP) facilities to design along with this project. Rough estimates of design discharges will be developed on gross acreage determination (i.e., total area tributary to a concentration point multiplied by an applicable yield factor [cfs per acre]). These values will be used to provide preliminary sizing of the drainage system within the project site. Products: Drainage Report 6.3.6 Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) The Storm Water Data Report for Project Report (PR) level will be prepared in accordance with the criteria and requirements set forth by Caltrans for such a document. Current guidelines for the preparation of the SWDR are contained within Appendix E of the Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide. A separate on -site conceptual drainage report shall be prepared as supplemental information for Caltrans for review and approval of the SWDR (See tasks as described in Task 6.3.5). Preparation of the Storm Water Data Report will be coordinated with the preparation of the Storm Water Quality Assessment document prepared by the 5 258 Environmental Team for the project and made a part of the CEQA and NEPA documentation for the project. The extent of the work involved in this task will require review of the existing Regional Water Quality Control Board agreements with the local jurisdictions; review of Caltrans BMP requirements; identification of expected pollutants; and identification of the necessary BMP sites within the project to treat runoff before discharging into existing watercourses. Product: Storm Water Data Report (PR Level) 6.3.7 Conceptual Stage Construction & Traffic Management Plan (TMP) The Consultant shall develop a construction staging concept for each build alternative. The concept will illustrate with schematic drawings to note the major features and stages of construction. At this stage we are concerned with identifying construction issues that influence the viability of the build alternatives. For example, it is anticipated that the need for such a plan for the interchanges will be required to demonstrate the impacts to the mainline freeway facilities. This plan shall depict the various stages of the work in the construction of the ultimate interchange and identify any future conflicts if the interchange is not built to its proposed ultimate configuration. This plan shall accommodate the existing traffic movements during construction and identify any required detour roads that would need to be constructed. The Stage Construction plan shall be a conceptual layout at 1:2000 scale and does not include a specific Traffic Handling Plan. A conceptual TMP will also be prepared for the project that discusses the overall traffic impacts to the surrounding area for the preferred alternative. The need to discuss the impacts to the local arterial roadway system and how the traffic will be handled shall be developed, depicting alternative routes along the local roads as well as identifying any necessary detour roads that would need to be constructed. Products: Stage Construction Conceptual Plans at 1:2000 scale; TMP Checklists 6.3.8 Traffic Warrants Certain key intersections needing traffic signals on opening day and in the future will be identified and substantiated using the Caltrans traffic warrant forms for future intersections. The warrants for the intersections identified will be included in the Project Report. Product: Traffic warrant for each proposed intersection 6 • 259 • • • 6.3.9 Design Exception Report As part of the Project Report, it will be necessary to identify those elements of the design that are not in conformance with either the advisory or the mandatory design requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. These exceptions to the design requirements will need to be specifically discussed in a Caltrans formatted Design Exception Report. Products: Fact Sheet for Advisory Non -Standard Features; Fact Sheet for Mandatory Non -Standard Features 6.4 Preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation Consultant shall prepare a preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) for the project that shall include pavement recommendations for both asphalt concrete sections and Portland cement concrete sections. The preliminary GDR shall also provide general design information for standard retaining wall design, slope stability requirements, and surface drainage and permeability requirements of the subgrade material anticipated to be encountered with this project. In addition, the Consultant shall perform a Preliminary Foundation Investigation for the preferred alignment at the various bridge sites to support Advance Planning Study. We plan to evaluate any major geotechnical elements that could influence the design of the bridges and will prepare a Preliminary Foundation Report to provide basic bridge design parameters. Phase 2 tasks to support the preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation are presented below. 6.4.1 Exploration Plan and Permits An exploration plan will be prepared and will include borings at bridges, interchanges, and widely spaced intervals along the corridor. The plan will be submitted to Jacobs for distribution to various agencies for approval. This task will also include obtaining any encroachment or well permits required by Caltrans or other agencies to drill soil and rock borings or install wells. Preliminary engineering geotechnical boring associated with the Mid County Parkway is an impacting activity and is considered part of the federal undertaking. For this level of study, LSA assumes that all disturbing activities including development of any staging areas, grading associated with access roads, and borings will be within the project APE. LSA will conduct compliance efforts to a Section 106 standard. If all geotechnical boring (including access roads, if required), will be done after the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect (DOE/FOE), then the HPSR and other studies will be adequate to address Section 106 compliance for the geotechnical investigation program. If the boring program is 7 260 conducted after the DOE/FOE there will be no compliance related delays; however a qualified archaeologist, and possibly Native American will be needed to monitor ground disturbing activities. 6.4.2 Site Investigations Site investigations will be limited to not more than 30 borings identified at specific locations within public right-of-way and representative of thepreferred alignment. This information, along with the data retrieved from the bridge site investigations, shall comprise the extent of the geotechnical recommendations at this phase of the work. It is anticipated that the final design phase of the project will require additional and more extensive geotechnical investigation. Following approval of the proposed boring locations, the Consultant will mark the proposed boring locations in the field and contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify the potential conflicts between planned exploration locations and existing underground utilities. Available documents pertaining to utilities and other underground obstructions will also be reviewed. 6.4.3 Foundation Investigation The Consultant will perform limited subsurface exploration for planned bridge structures along the preferred alignment. For preliminary planning, one boring is planned for a select number of bridge and interchange sites except for bridge structures at the system -to -system interchanges (1-15, 1-215, and SR -79), where up to four borings, one in each quadrant, may be planned. For this scope of services, no more than 20 deep soil borings of not more than 80 feet in depth are estimated. Up to four borings may also be converted to monitoring wells where shallow groundwater is anticipated. Wells will be capped and properly abandoned after use. The borings will be used to provide preliminary geotechnical analysis for foundation selection and bridge design. The Consultant will provide preliminary seismic design recommendations, including recommended acceleration response spectra in accordance with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. More detailed design - level investigation will be performed at a later date. 6.4.4 Borrow Site Investigations Up to five areas identified as potential borrow sites will be evaluated. The evaluation will focus on the suitability of excavated materials for use as engineered fill as well as future borrow site slopes and fills. The evaluation may include subsurface exploration, geophysical surveys, and laboratory testing. 6.4.5 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing will be performed on selected samples obtained during field exploration to assess the physical characteristics of the subsurface materials. It is anticipated that the testing will include moisture/density, gradation, plasticity index, 8 • 261 • • • sand equivalent, consolidation, collapse potential, direct shear, maximum density/optimum moisture content, expansion, corrosion, R -value potential, and durability. The testing program may be modified based on the actual subsurface materials encountered during exploration. 6.4.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations Preliminary pavement design recommendations will be provided for the eastern and western corridor preferred alignments. Preliminary pavement design will be based on subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and traffic indices provided by the client. 6.4.7 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report A Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report will be prepared that will present the data obtained during field explorations and laboratory testing, as well as conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the following: • Project description, including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface drainage, and land use. • Discussion of geotechnical setting, including regional geology, subsurface soil, and groundwater conditions. • Discussion of regional faulting and seismicity and geologic hazards, including the potential for surface fault rupture, seismic -induced ground deformation or settlement related to liquefaction, seismic compaction, or lateral spreading. • Preliminary recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations. • Preliminary evaluation of gross and surficial stability of the proposed fill slopes. • Preliminary earthwork considerations, including excavation characteristics, erosion controls, and estimates for shrinkage and bulking. • Preliminary collapse, expansive, and corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended mitigation measures, if necessary. • Preliminary recommendations for pavement structural design based on traffic indices assumed or provided by the client. • Recommendations for borrow sites. • Discussion of materials available, including local and commercial sources and materials specifications. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented in a Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report and will include logs of the borings and laboratory test results. 9 262 6.4.8 Preliminary Foundation Report A separate Preliminary Foundation Report will be prepared for bridge design and foundation selection. The Preliminary Foundation Report will present preliminary information and recommendations for foundation types, design of embankments, seismic data (including recommended acceleration response spectra in accordance with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria), and other information to evaluate the bridges. 6.4.9 Geology/Geotechnical Support for Environmental/Engineering Services We anticipate that geologic and geotechnical services will be provided to the Environmental and Engineering Teams as needed to support environmental documentation and basic engineering at this phase of the work. It is anticipated that the final design phase of the project will require additional and more extensive geotechnical investigation. Following approval of the proposed boring locations, the Consultant will mark the proposed boring locations in the field and contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify the potential conflicts between planned exploration locations and existing underground utilities. Available documents pertaining to utilities and other underground obstructions will also be reviewed. 6.5 Project Report 6.5.1 Draft Project Report The Consultant will prepare a Draft Project Report (DPR) according to the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, incorporating City and County requirements and Caltrans design standards. The DPR will include all the engineering technical studies and individual reports to support all the build and no - build alternatives. This document will be used as a reference for the environmental documentation for the project. The approval of the DPR will authorize the DED to be circulated to the public. Assumption: 70 copies of the Draft Project Report will be needed Products: Draft Project Report 6.5.2 Final Project Report As a result of the environmental evaluation and the public comments, a Preferred Alternative will be selected for the project. The Consultant will incorporate comments from the DPR and prepare the Final Project Report (Final PR) based on the Preferred Alternative. The Final PR will also address any changes in the Preferred 10 • 263 • • • Alternative and cost estimates arising from the environmental studies, such as any environmental mitigations or avoidances. It is expected that more specific funding sources will be identified before or during the Final PR stage. Pursuant to RCTC's direction, the consultant will develop a Final Preferred Alternative that is modified from the Preferred Alternative in the Final PR. Assumption: 70 copies of the Final Project Report will be needed Product: Final Project Report 6.6 New Connection Report (NCR) / Modified Access Report (MAR) To satisfy FHWA requirements, a Modified Access Report (MAR) and a New Connection Report (NCR) will be required for the project. These documents are necessary for FHWA to provide its approval to the proposed geometry of the interchange and the manner in which the ties to the existing interstate freeways are to occur. To meet the schedule requirement and to expedite the review processes, the draft NCR/MAR's will be submitted to FHWA before a Preferred Alternative is selected. As such, three separate NCR/MARs will be required: one at the Cajalco interchange with 1-15, one at the interchange of Ramona Expressway and 1-215 (northern option) and one at the interchange with 1-215 south of Ramona Expressway (southern option.) Each report shall be based on much of the same information in the draft Project Report and will address the information requested in the "FHWA PSR/PR Tidbits (8/27/02)," which requests information on the ultimate facility configuration, the financially constrained model for the freeway, and other programming issues related to the Regional Transportation Program. Exhibits for the NCR/MAR shall include the Conceptual Alignment Plans from the previous section of this scope of services and a full discussion of the various alternatives evaluated to this point in the project approval process. Assumption: 30 copies of the NCR/MAR will be needed Products: NCR/MAR CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 6.7 Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) The GADs, also referred to as Geometric Base Maps, shall be prepared for the Preferred Alternative as designated by the client in metric units at 1:500 scale based 11 264 on the current topographic information developed in Phase 1 of the project. No work on the preparation of the GADs will occur until the designation of the Preferred Alternative has been made. The GADs shall include the following items of information: • Forecasting data, inclualig directional movements • Operational analysis of the mainline and affected intersections • Typical sections for each of the facilities within the GAD • Plan view of the facility showing the existing topography, the basic striping, and the major structures • Profile and superelevation diagrams for each of the facilities depicted within the GAD • Design Exception Reports applicable to the GAD • Design Information Bulletin Checklist 77 completed and prepared in discussion format as necessary. The GADs shall be prepared according to the Caltrans District 8 GAD Requirements dated December 11, 2002. Assumption: 70 copies of the Geometric Approval Drawings will be needed for the Preferred Alternative Product: GAD for the Preferred Alternative 12 • 265 • • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK ORDER NO. 7 — GIS DATA BASE SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 7.0 GIS DATA BASE SERVICES For this project, the Geographic Information System (GIS) will provide the base structure for data collection and organization. The GIS Team will continue to provide data organization, dissemination, and support for the PDT. There are six main tasks that the GIS team will address: 1. Development and maintenance of data library functions and distribution system 2. Update and publish base data and alignment layer; data standards to be used by project teams 3. Data needs assessment, acquisition, review, and maintenance 4. Analysis utilizing the GIS system as required to support general project needs 5. Generate maps, tables, reports, presentation graphics, and online GIS resources 6. Data archive, documentabn, delivery, and training 7.1 Setup, Development, and Maintenance of Data Library and Distribution System A Project Data Control and Management Library has been established in Phase 1 that contains the data collected or generated for the project. RBF will continue to maintain and update this system as necessary for this phase of the project work. This system, which will be maintained and operated in conjunction with the project and document management collaboration site, will serve as a central online repository for project data. Data stored at the site will be registered to the project alignment layer developed by the Survey and Mapping Team, and meta data will be made available to provide users with pertinent information relating to the data's source, level of accuracy, date of completion, and any specific limitations in the use of the data. Additional functionality of the site will maintain a list of data downloads for notification of modifications by the data originator. Base data and data sets too large for distribution from the FTP site will be made available by CD. CD updates will be distributed as warranted throughout the Phase 2 project life. 1 266 7.2 Publish Base Data and Alignment Layer; Create Data Standards to be Used by Project Teams Meetings will be held with all teams and individuals working on the project to provide information on how to access data and to describe the data standards that have been set for graphics, feature attributes, symbology, and meta data. The GIS team will provide support to other production teams to assist in maintaining the standards in their data generation and utilization. The data standards created for the project GIS will conform to the data standards currently in use on County systems. Data standards will be determined and established per the data dictionaries provided by the governing agencies and their GIS departments. A base data set has been established and will be maintained and updated by the GIS team in conjunction with the work to be completed by the survey and mapping team, which will be used by the other team members for convergence of data sets. This base data layer will be referred to as the "Data Alignment Layer." The Data Alignment Layer will consist of points, lines, and polygons taken from various data sources at various scales and levels of accuracy. Meta data relating to these geographic features will be of primary importance and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. The datum and projection of the Data Alignment Layer will be based on the County Parcel Data, which is NAD83 California State Plane Zone 6. As new data enters the project in this phase, the project team responsible for the new data will develop the appropriate meta data attributes and align the data to the Data Alignment Layer prior to requesting that the data be placed in the project data library. Data in the project data library will be available for access by other project team members but may only be modified by the responsible team. The GIS team will be responsible for the maintenance of the data library and will provide assistance to the other project teams if required to align and register new data sets. The goal of this task is to have each final data set delivered to the client, whether engineering, planning, or environmental based, to fit the constraints of the overall project coordinate control to make it most useful for future use and assure project quality between disciplines. 7.3 Data Needs Assessment, Acquisition, Review, and Maintenance Data will be the core of all of the project tasks for each of the project teams. This task simply defines how the data will be provided and the basic format and alignment to other data. The data itself is going to be the most important component of the GIS coordination. Whether existing data is received from other sources or new data is developed during the project tasks, most of the project data will be utilized for many disciplines and all segments of the project. Therefore, the timing and availability of each data set will be important to project team managers. To • 2 267 • • address this need, the GIS team will coordinate with each project team for identification of required data, adequacy of the available data, and acquisition of the required new data layers. This task will contain the following three components: 7.3.1 Establish the anticipated additional data needs, potential new sources as requested by the other project teams, and availability of the required data sets. 7.3.2 Develop a thorough list, presenting the identified data sets, the anticipated source for the data, any additional work that must be completed prior to use of the data, and the schedule for availability of the data. 7.3.3 Collect data from its source. If the data is among the available data sets at the County or other global project sources, the data will be acquired, checked, and moved to the project data library for use. Other data sets requiring additional work will be acquired by the responsible project team and modified as necessary prior to being forwarded to the GIS team for checking and placement in the project data library. 7.4 Analysis Utilizing the GIS System Once the project data is available in the project data library, the analysis of this data by each of the project teams will be undertaken. The analysis will be completed using the GIS system as a tool for evaluation of data and for the development of new data sets. New GIS data sets and resulting analyses will be maintained in the project data library and available for the other project teams to utilize. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS analysis services to the other project team members. The budget for such analyses is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the individual project team. Analysis will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other GIS, CAD, or modeling software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Data created through this process will follow the same rigorous testing and quality checking as original data before documentation, meta data attribution, and placement in the project data library. A specific budget has been assigned for analysis requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.5 Generate Map, Tables, Reports, Presentation Graphics, and Online GIS Resources Mapping standards, including global project symbol libraries, line styles, color palettes, and standard map layout at various scales will be provided to the project team members for the generation of their GIS map products. These templates will 3 268 be provided online with the project data library. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS map design and creation services to the other project teams. The budget for such map generation is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the project team. Map generation will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Maps created through this process will follow rigorous quality checking procedures for accuracy and completeness. Digital versions of the final map products will be made available to the other team members in the project data library where appropriate. A specific budget has been assigned for map making requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.6 Data Archive, Documentation, Delivery, and Training 7.6.1 Following completion of the project, the project data collected and generated by the project team members will be archived for delivery to the client to support future work. This archiving process will include the verification and documentation of the data structures and meta data for each data set. The data archive will consist of the creation of a permanent data backup such as DVD or CD-ROM. 7.6.2 Agency staff will be provided with training from the project GIS team with up to four two-hour training sessions. This training is to include an introduction and demonstration of the expanded GIS database, the new data structures, and uses identified in the project. Assumptions: 1. All data required for this project that originates from County government or Transportation Agencies will be provided free of charge to the Consultant within the time constraints provided in the approved schedule. Such data will be complete, current, and accurate as required for the analysis and mapping purposes designated for this project. Also, it is assumed that the data sets will have been previously registered to each County's parcel land base or the project data alignment layer. Data layers specified in the RFP to be updated as part of this project are specifically excluded from this assumption. 2. Data requiring acquisition through purchase will be reimbursed by the client. 3. The client and the Consultant will enter into a reciprocal confidentiality agreement concerning the creation, transfer, and use of GIS data specifically pertaining to this project. Product: GIS Database 4 • 269 T A project of the Riverside County Transportation Commission WHAT OUTESWIL.L. BE STUDIED? The Mid County Parkway project will complete environmental studies for seven alternative routes and a no project alternative. Of the seven alternative routes, two combine elements from the General Plan with alignments that have been developed through the study process to date. Many of the alignment alternatives share common segments but there are significant differences in the Lake Mathews and Perris areas.The yellow lines on the maps to the right show the proposed alternatives, and the blue hatched areas show areas near the alignment that are still under study to allow for adjustment of the final alignment as a result of the environmental studies. Alternative 1: No ProjectlNo Action Alternative I represents 2030 traffic on the planned street network except for future improvements to Cajalco Road and Ramona Expressway, which would remain as they exist today. The future east -west traffic described in the study area would be served by the existing Cajalco Road and El Sobrante between 1-15 and 1-215, and by existing Ramona Expressway between 1-215 and SR-79.This alternative assumes 2030 land use conditions and implementation of planned improvements to the regional and local circulation system as accounted for in the Riverside County General Plan and other adopted plans and policies. Alternative 2: North Lake Mathews/North Perris Alternative Alignment Alternative 2 is a 6- to 10 -lane limited access parkway alternative, Alternative 2 is located north of Lake Mathews and follows a northerly alignment through Perris.The alignment would be located along or near the existing El Sobrante Road for much of the area directly north of Lake Matthews and follows a new alignment west of Lake Mathews. k is located north of Ramona Expressway from 1-215 to east of Evans Road. Alternative 2 would connect to system -to -system interchanges at 1-15, at 1-215, and at SR -79, Alternative 3: North Lake Mathews/South Perris Alternative Alignment Alternative 3 is a 6- to 10 -lane limited access parkway alternative. Alternative 3 is located north of Lake Mathews and follows a southerly alignment through Perris. Alternative 3 is located south of Ramona Expressway from 1-215 to just west of Antelope Road. The all rnnent would be located along or near the existing El Sobrante Road for much of the area directly north of Lake Mathews and follows a gnment west of Lake Mathews, Alternative 3 would connect to system -to -system interchanges at 1-15, at 1-215, and at SR -79. ative 4: South Lake Mathews/North Perris Alternative Alignment Alternative 4 is a 6- to 10 -lane limited access parkway alternative, Alternative 4 is located south of Lake Mathews and follows a northerly alignment through Perris. This alternative would be located south of the existing Cajalco Road west of Lake Mathews Drive and locat- ed north of Ramona Expressway from 1-215 to east of Evans Road. Alternative 4 would connect to system -to -system interchanges at 1-15, at 1-215, and at SR -79, Alternative 5: South Lake Mathews/South Perris Alternative Alignment Alternative 5 is a 6- to 10 -lane limited access parkway alternative. Alternative 5 is located south of Lake Mathews and follows a southerly alignment through Perris. This alternative is located south of the existing Cajalco Road west of Lake Mathews Drive and is located south of Ramona Expressway from 1-215 to just west of Antelope Road. Alternative 5 would connect to system -to -system interchanges at 1-15, at 1-215, and at SR -79. Alternative 6: General Plan/North Perris Alternative Alignment Alternative 6 involves the implementation of arterial improvements included in General Plan, including a 6 -lane arterial north of Lake Mathews and a 4 -lane arterial south of Lake Mathews, west of El Sobrante Road, and a new 6- to 10 -lane limited access parkway facility east of El Sobrante Road.This alternative is the same as Alternatives 2 and 4 described above east of I-215 and is located north of Ramona Expressway from I-215 to east of Evans Road.The proposed arterial street improvements north and south of Lake Mathews are consistent with the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element and generally follow the alignments shown in the General Plan, Alternative 7: General Plan/South Perris Alternative Alignment Alternative 7 involves the implementation of arterial improvements included in the Riverside County General Plan, including a 6 -lane arterial north of Lake Mathews, a 4 -lane arterial south of Lake Mathews, west of El Sobrante Road, and a new 6- w 10 -lane limited access parkway facility east of El Sobrante Road.This alternative is the same as Aternatives 3 and 5 described above east of 1-215 and follows a southerly alignment through Perris.The proposed arterial street improvements north and south of Lake Mathews are consistent with the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element and generally follow the alignments shown in the General Plan_ Alternative 8: General Plan Circulation Element Alternative 8 represents 2030 traffic on the planned street network according to the Circulation Element of the Riverside Cori e as Alternative 1 but includes, i nt with the Riverside AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreement No. 05-25-535 for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-25-535* for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study for a not to exceed amount of $ 150,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $ 150,000 of re -allocated LTF funds and increase the FY 2004-05 rail operating budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. *This item is scheduled to be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee on January 7th. The recommendation will be presented to the Commission. This is forwarded to the Commission prior to the review of the Committee to meet the mail out and posting requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC staff is participating at both technical and management levels in the development of three separate five -county strategic efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: • Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30 -year commuter rail strategic plan for current service and planned extensions with a timeline for completion by August 2005. The Riverside County geographic scope is the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines with the planned Perris Valley Line (PVL) extension. Agenda Item 8 271 • Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan A 30 -year plan that reflects regional agreement on a phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern California, and determine how best to minimize the impacts of freight movement (truck, train, airport) on local communities, the existing transportation system, and the environment. The timeline for completion is Spring 2006 in order to provide timely input to the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The Riverside County geographic scope includes, at a minimum, the following freeways - 1-10, 1-15, SR 60, SR 91, SR 86, and corresponding freight rail lines and related cargo airports. • Five -County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture A joint advocacy effort with BNSF and UP railroads to develop new short-term federal funding and long-term public -private financing mechanisms for port - generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the SCAG region. The Riverside County geographic scope includes Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects and rail capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP main lines that parallel the SR 91 and 1-10 freeways. • These activities in the Southern California basin will result in an assessment of passenger and freight rail capacity requirements that will require some form of public • subsidy. In response to these activities, the Commission authorized staff at its November 10, 2004 meeting to develop and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. This effort will allow the Commission to determine if additional extensions, beyond the PVL Project, should be assessed in the regional study efforts. The extensions to be studied are as follows: • Commuter Rail from Riverside to Banning and Beaumont; • Commuter Rail from Indio (Coachella Valley) to Riverside to Los Angeles; • Commuter Rail and Intracounty Rail from South Perris to Winchester, Hemet, and San Jacinto; • Commuter Rail from South Perris to Temecula via Winchester Road (along the CETAP corridor); and • lntracounty Rail from South Perris to Murrieta and Temecula via the 1-215 corridor. Selection Process The RFP was released on November 19, 2004 with a mailing to 35 firms. The RFP was also posted on the agency website. The Commission received five proposals by the deadline of December 13, 2004. The proposals were reviewed by the Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the Cities of Banning, Hemet, and • Agenda Item 8 272 • • • Riverside, the agencies of Southern California Regional Rail Authority and RCTC, and Schiermeyer Consulting Services. The Evaluation Committee will meet on January 7th and a recommendation will be presented to the Commission at its January 12th meeting. Funding for the Study Previously allocated Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds are available to fund this study, however, a budget adjustment and Short Range Transit Plan Amendment is needed to authorize the expenditure of funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $150,000 Source of Funds: Re -allocated LTF Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 103-25-85101 P4201 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14e4,,,,,avj-,,,,rte Date: 12/20/2004 Agenda Item 8 273 REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 8 Additions noted by Bold Italics Deletions noted by Strikethrough RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreement No. 05-25-535 for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-25-535 to R.L. Banks & Associates for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study for a not to exceed amount of $ 150,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $ 150,000 of re -allocated LTF funds and increase the FY 2004-05 Rail Operating Budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC staff is participating at both technical and management levels in the development of three separate five -county strategic efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: • Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30 -year commuter rail strategic plan for current service and planned extensions with a timeline for completion by August 2005. The Riverside County geographic scope is the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines with the planned Perris Valley Line (PVL) extension. • Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan A 30 -year plan that reflects regional agreement on a phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern California, and determine how best to minimize the impacts of freight movement (truck, train, airport) on local communities, the existing transportation system, and the environment. The timeline for completion is Spring 2006 in order to provide timely input to the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The Riverside County geographic scope includes, at a minimum, the following freeways — 1-10, 1-15, SR 60, SR 91, SR 86, and corresponding freight rail lines and related cargo airports. • Five -County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture A joint advocacy effort with BNSF and UP railroads to develop new short-term federal funding and long-term public -private financing mechanisms for port - generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the SCAG region. The Riverside County geographic scope includes Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects and rail capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP main lines that parallel the SR 91 and 1-10 freeways. These activities in the Southern California basin will result in an assessment of passenger and freight rail capacity requirements that will require some form of public subsidy. In response to these activities, the Commission authorized staff at its November 10, 2004 meeting to develop and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. This effort will allow the Commission to determine if additional extensions, beyond the PVL Project, should be assessed in the regional study efforts. The extensions to be studied are as follows: • Commuter Rail from Riverside to Banning and Beaumont; • Commuter Rail from Indio (Coachella Valley) to Riverside to Los Angeles; • Commuter Rail and lntracounty Rail from South Perris to Winchester, Hemet, and San Jacinto; • Commuter Rail from South Perris to Temecula via Winchester Road (along the CETAP corridor); and • lntracounty Rail from South Perris to Murrieta and Temecula via the 1-215 corridor. Agenda Item 8 Selection Process The RFP was released on November 19, 2004 with a mailing to 35 firms. The RFP was also posted on the agency website. The Commission received five proposals by the deadline of December 13, 2004. The proposals were reviewed by the Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the Cities of Banning, Hemet, and Riverside, the agencies of Southern California Regional Rail Authority and RCTC, and Schiermeyer Consulting Services. The Evaluation Committee will meet on January 7th meeting. Two firms, R.L. Banks & Associates and Meyer Mohadded & Associates, were interviewed by the Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee recommends the Commission award the contract to the top ranked firm, R.L. Banks & Associates. Funding for the Study Previously allocated Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds are available to fund this study, however, a budget adjustment and Short Range Transit Plan Amendment is needed to authorize the expenditure of funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $150,000 Source of Funds: Re -allocated LTF Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 103-25-85101 P4201 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1 44,1/4,4,414,0, Date: 12/20/2004 Agenda Item 8 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO. : ' ` SUBJECT OF IAS LISTED ON THE A GENDA) — AGENDA ITEM: NAME: ADDRESS: TEL. NO.: X / ar-d, 6he,r //fie cP/if)/ fr Street REPRESENTING: / O/7)'f �i%7 76-eir c j Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 City Zip Code TEL. NO .: AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Status Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Proposed 2005-2006 State and Federal Legislative Programs; 2) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT — ACA 4 (Plescia, R -San Diego); and, 3) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • Proposition 42 Fate Tied to Budget Process On January 10, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will release his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2005-06. With a forecasted deficit of more than $8 billion, the Governor will likely consider yet another suspension of Proposition 42. Although more than 70 percent of the state's voters cast a YES vote in March 2002, the provision that allows for a suspension in case of a "fiscal emergency" can be especially tempting when faced with a major budget test. Although this year's forecasted shortfall is much smaller than the previous year, a number of significant cuts in state spending were already made, leaving fewer alternatives for savings this year. In a bid to forestall the potential suspension of Proposition 42, a broad -based coalition of transportation agencies, business interests and labor organizations held a rally/press conference in early December on the steps of the State Capitol. The purpose of the event was to build public support for the full funding of Proposition 42 and to create media attention in advance of the budget and immediately after the swearing -in of legislators. The event garnered a great deal of Agenda Item 9 274 news coverage including front-page coverage in the Press Enterprise. As another example of the media Jim Earp of the Californian Alliance for Jobs, who participated in the news conference in Sacramento was interviewed on the top - rated John & Ken Show on KFI in Los Angeles. While transportation interests are likely looking at another suspension of Proposition 42, public interest has been raised on the issue that will make it a much harder choice to make during the budget process that will continue during the first part of this year. As for the future, the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California are considering spearheading an initiative drive to close the loophole that allows for the suspension of Proposition 42. Assemblyman George Plescia (R -Vista) and Tom Harman (R -Huntington Beach) have also introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 that would accomplish the same objective. For ACA 4 to become law, it will require 2/3rds approval in the Legislature and ratification by the state's voters. Staff is recommending a SUPPORT position on this bill and will return to the Commission for similar positions on similar bills that are likely to be introduced later in the year. In addition to the budget, the other item that will receive close attention during the first part of this year is the Governor's California Performance Review (CPR) effort and the potential for a special election that could be held to implement parts of the CPR. It is clear that much of the CPR effort will be scaled down, but certain provisions of the plan will undoubtedly come forward either legislatively or through a potential special election that could be called by the Governor. Staff will monitor this issue and return to the Commission next month if legislation is introduced. Outlook for Federal Transportation Legislation Still Uncertain Among Congressional watchers, the most optimistic among them in the transportation field believe that the reauthorization of federal transportation legislation will be one of Congress' immediate priorities in the early part of 2005. Many of these same people expressed the same optimism for the past two years but were instead greeted with limited, short-term extensions of the act that currently take us through the end of May. One of the sticking points in reauthorizing the federal transportation act has been the issue of amount. The funding levels have ranged from the President's original proposal of $256 billion to Congress Don Young's call for a $375 billion bill, which would require an increase in federal gas taxes to pay for it. Finally, by the end of last year the Senate approved a $318 billion bill and the House approved a more modest $298 billion package. The White House threatened a veto of either bill because the cost was too high and the Congress never succeeded in agreeing upon any version to send to the White House anyway. • Agenda Item 9 275 • • • As the current year begins, the fiscal situation in Washington is little improved. President Bush has even mentioned the possibility of a federal spending freeze and has shown no inclination for supporting an increase in fuel taxes of any kind. Should an agreement on the bill be reached early in the Congressional year, the overall price tag for the reauthorization will likely be in the lower range. In working with our Congressional representatives regarding earmarks for necessary projects, staff recommends a concerted effort to seek funding on the same projects that were identified for last year's Congressional session. An attachment is included that organizes these Congressional requests into corridors. In addition to necessary improvements on highway corridors such as State Routes 79 and 91, 1-215 and 1-10 the requests include the need for grade separations along the county's rail corridors, full funding for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension and funding for new a corridor to Orange County. All of these projects are big - ticket regional items that the Commission can advocate on behalf of the entire county and appropriate for inclusion in an omnibus, multi -year authorization bill. Funding for grade separations was supported for inclusion into last year's bill as part of a major funding package for the Alameda Corridor East. In addition to projects another important priority is to work toward a better return of federal transportation funding to each state. California has a long been what is known as donor state. In short, Californians pay more in federal transportation taxes than they receive in federal transportation investments. Given the state's size, that is likely to continue but an increase in the guaranteed amount to be returned to each state could result in a significant increase in funding for the state. Legislative Platform Each year, staff presents a draft legislative program to the Commission for consideration. The purpose of the platform is to give staff general guidance in overall direction for legislative affairs. Staff is still required to return to the Commission for formal approval of legislative positions on specific bills. This year's legislative program is little changed from the previous year. The main priorities are to protect and funding while increasing flexibility to make project delivery more efficient. Reducing regulatory burdens and costs were among the priorities of the Governor's California Performance Review. While the overall scope of the Governor's reform package has been reduced, there remains the possibility of a special election in 2005 on an omnibus package of governmental reform. Although much of the focus will be placed on issues such as legislative redistricting, campaign reform and public employee pensions, the package could also include changes in infrastructure investment and planning as well as potential Agenda Item 9 276 changes in governmental structure. In any case, the current status of a potential special election is still in doubt, however staff will update the Commission as developments occur. Attachments: 1) Proposed 2005-2006 State and Federal Legislative Programs 2) Transportation Project Federal Funding List • Agenda Item 9 277 • Riverside County Transportation Commission 2005-2006 State Legislative Program The following draft legislative program has been developed by the staff of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and is intended to establish the Commission's legislative priorities for the coming year legislative sessions. OVERALL OBJECTIVES 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs especially during a time of economic and budget uncertainty within the State of California. 2. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of RCTC to implement needed transportation plans and ensures flexibility in the use of transportation revenue. 3. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes and work closely with allied agencies to advance transportation programs and services. • STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs especially during a time of economic and budget uncertainty within the State of California. A. Support California Transportation Commission allocations to fully fund projects for Riverside County included in the State Transportation Improvement Program and that would enable the timely delivery of projects included in the Measure "A" Expenditure Plans of 1989 and 2009. B. Oppose any proposal that could reduce Riverside County's opportunity to receive transportation funds, including diversion of state transportation revenues for other purposes. Fund sources include, but are not limited to, the State Highway Account (SHA), Public Transit Account (PTA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) and any ballot initiative sources. This includes taking a strong stance to support full funding and implementation of Proposition 42. • C. Require the timely repayment, with interest, of all state transportation funding that is diverted to the general fund and resist additional shifting of transportation funds to non -transportation purposes. D. Support the SB 45 regional programming process to provide for regional determination and programming for the use of all current funding sources and to provide total flexibility for all current and future STIP programs. E. Support state policies that assure timely allocation of transportation revenue, including allocations of new funds available to the STIP process as soon as they are available. F. Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the South Coast Air Basin to local jurisdiction and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC); support MSRC's role as an independent decision -making body. G. Support legislation and/or budgetary actions to assure a fair share of State revenues of intercity rail (provided by Amtrak, Metrolink or other operators) funding for Southern California and Riverside County. H. Monitor legislative and gubernatorial actions regarding the California Performance Review. Most specifically, monitor proposals in the CPR that impact infrastructure investment and delivery. 2. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of RCTC to implement its transportation programs and plans and ensures flexibility in the use of transportation revenue. A. Support or seek legislation and administrative financing/programming policies and procedures to assure an identified source of funding and an equitable distribution of the funding for bus and rail services in California. B. Assure that dedicated state intercity rail funding is allocated to the regions administering each portion of the system and assure that funding is distributed on an equitable basis. C. Support or seek legislation to close loopholes in Proposition 42 to ensure funding for street and road maintenance and repairs. • 279 • • • D. Support legislation to ensure equitable funding to support call box programs in Riverside County and throughout the state. E. Support legislation to provide funding for innovative, intelligent/advanced transportation, goods movement, and air quality programs which relieve congestion, improve air quality and enhance economic development. F. Seek a fair share for Riverside County of any state discretionary funding made available for transportation grants or programs. G. Support income tax benefits or incentives that encourage use of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative modes of transportation without reducing existing transportation funding levels. H. Monitor market -based pricing measures on their effectiveness in relieving traffic congestion, improve air quality or fund transportation alternatives. 3. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes and work closely with allied agencies to advance transportation programs and services. A. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. B. Support regulatory and legislative efforts to speed approvals of new corridors as part of Riverside County's national recognized efforts of environmental streamlining. C. Work closely with neighboring agencies in Orange County to assure timely completion of the Major Investment Study of a new corridor between Riverside and Orange County. D. Continue close working relationship with the San Bernardino Associated Governments on issues of mutual concern, especially in terms of regional transportation matters including goods movement, air pollution and aviation. E. Support legislation to amend California Eminent Domain Law to more fairly set awards in eminent domain lawsuits. F. Participate in regional efforts to increase state funding and for goods movement -related transportation projects. 280 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission 2005-2006 Federal Legislative Program OVERALL OBJECTIVES 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. 2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. 3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. A. Support efforts to bring transportation appropriations to authorized levels. B. Seek a fair share for Riverside County of any federal funding made available for transportation programs and projects. C. Seek a fair share and equitable rate of return for the State of California of federal transportation funding. While California will likely remain a "donor" county, every effort must be made to raise the current percentage of return in federal tax revenues that are generated in the state. D. Support continued Federal commitment of funds to support public transit, to assure that California and the western states receive a fair share of the AMTRAK funding resources as compared to the North East Corridor. E. Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and national significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local and state transportation programs and budgets. F. Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development needs in Riverside County. G. Seek a New Starts full funding grant agreement for the Perris Valley Line extension of Metrolink via the Commission -owned San Jacinto Branch Line. H. Support local agencies seeking federal transportation funding in a coordinated manner in order to maximize project funding from Federal legislation. 2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. A. Support the proposed "Small Starts" category within the new highway authorization bill for projects seeking less than $100 million to enhance the opportunities for funding of the Perris Valley Line extension project. B. Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. C. Support increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor East improvements with a special emphasis on ensuring funding for Riverside County rail grade separations. D. Support legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation, and Welfare). E. Support legislative or administrative policies that promote a "regional" approach to airport development and usage of March Air Reserve Base, Southern California Logistics, Palm Springs International Airport, San Bernardino International, and Ontario International airports. 3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. A. Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among the Federal congestion management and the State's Congestion Management Program requirements. B. Monitor market -based pricing measures regarding their effectiveness to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and/or fund transportation alternatives. C. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance highway project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. • • • 282 • • • D. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost savings to environmental clearance processes for transportation construction projects. E. Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements to ensure efficiency and usefulness of data collected and eliminate unnecessary and/or duplicative requirements. DRAFT • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Transportation Project Federal Funding List The following list of federal legislative priorities reflects the Riverside County Transportation Commission's ongoing efforts to seek large-scale investment on appropriate projects and especially in priority corridors. Each of these projects has received Commission approval in past actions and is the subject of active short- term and long-term efforts by the Commission and staff to secure funding. For inclusion in the TEA bill, the focus of the regionally significant projects is organized along a corridor framework. Within each corridor, there are a number of needed projects that could benefit from federal funding. Instead of focusing on a single project, the list seeks funding of improvements along priority corridors. In seeking funding from the Federal Transportation Act, the projects tend to fall under one of two categories. The first type of project is one that facilitates the movement of goods or people, into, out of, or through Riverside County. The second type of project is one that ensures safe transport and mitigates the impacts of such high volume movements, particularly in the area of goods movement. In seeking funding, it is important to also consider individual Congressional Districts and to organize projects within each district for Congressional support. Grade Separations — Alameda Corridor East $225 Million Rapid growth in port -related rail freight from Los Angeles through Riverside County to the rest of the nation necessitates construction of grade separations and other mitigations to avoid severe congestion and air quality impacts. The unfunded need is estimated to be nearly $700 million for 47 grade separations and other safety improvements in Riverside County. During last year's negotiations for the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, a wide-ranging coalition of Southern California Congressional Representatives supported inclusion of a $900 million earmark for the Alameda Corridor East which would be split evenly among four interests including Riverside County. An important priority for the Commission is to see this language included again this year. CETAP Riverside/Orange County Corridor $ 50 Million Riverside and Orange counties are working together explore a new transportation corridor. This funding would be used to continue the study and preparation of environmental documentation and acquire land that is necessary for construction of a new corridor especially now that the Major Investment Study with Orange County has commenced. Congressman Ken Calvert who represents both counties has been successful in obtaining funding in the past and is a big supporter of this effort. DRAFT CETAP — Mid County Parkway $75 million Environmental work is currently underway for the development of a new corridor between Corona and San Jacinto. This east/west corridor is necessary to improve overall mobility throughout western Riverside County and to provide an alternative to Route 60. While development of the Mid County Parkway is a separate and distinct project from the Riverside/Orange County Corridor, on the western side it affects many of the same communities. As the corridor moves to the east, it is critical for economic development and job creation opportunities in communities that include Perris, Hemet and San Jacinto. The project travels through the Congressional districts of Representatives Calvert, Bono and Lewis. Metrolink Commuter Rail extension — Perris Valley Line $80 Million Seek New Start funding for a this project to partially fund construction of an extension of Metrolink commuter rail service from urban downtown Riverside to Moreno Valley and Perris on RCTC owned rail right-of-way known as the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). The segment extends from downtown Riverside to Perris, and also includes the construction of five new commuter rail stations, and the purchase of locomotives and passenger rail cars. The length of this segment is 19 miles. This project is located within the Congressional districts of Representatives Calvert, Bono and Issa. 1-215 Corridor $75 Million The recent decision of DHL to move to the March Global Port and the planning business expansion of the March facility will further intensify the need to expand 1- 215 and especially at the I-215/Van Buren Interchange. While funding is included in the Measure "A" extension program for the widening of 1-215, current needs will require project development sooner than funding will be made available. This area has been a focus for economic development and job creation in Riverside County and is supported by Congressman Calvert. State Route 79 Corridor Realignment — Hemet & San Jacinto Area $25 Million The realignment of State Route 79 is continuing through the environmental process and RCTC recently hosted a number of public meetings in Hemet and San Jacinto. While it is funded by the Measure "A" extension, federal funding at this time could fund the completion of design and environmental work and for preservation of right-of-way. Congressman Jerry Lewis represents much of this area and has repeatedly shown a commitment to funding local needs. • • • 285 DRAFT State Route 91 Corridor Mary Street to 60/91/215 Interchange — Riverside $15 million This project which was to be funded with a combination of state and Measure "A" dollars has been jeopardized due to state budget cutbacks. It is a federally - recognized Transportation Control Measure and represents a major gap closure in Riverside County's HOV lane network. The $15 million would cover right-of-way and design costs. 1-10 Corridor Interchanges $35 Million RCTC will work with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to seek needed federal funding on interchanges along Interstate 10. Congressman Lewis has been successful in obtaining funding for the interchange at 1-10/Palm Drive but additional work is necessary on other interchanges. CETAP Winchester to Temecula Corridor & I-15/French Valley Parkway $45 Million • • A new interchange on the Interstate 15 at French Valley Parkway in the City of Temecula will relieve congestion near the confluence of 1-15 and 1-215. This funding would be used to partially fund environmental document preparation and design and engineering costs to make the project "shelf -ready" and initiate right-of- way acquisition. State Route 86 Corridor $25 Million Funding is necessary to construct interchanges to separate vehicles traveling at freeway speeds on State Route 86 at the intersection with Avenue 50 in Coachella and at Avenue 66. These projects have been requested by CVAG to be included in RCTC's annual appropriations requests and enjoy strong support from Congresswoman Bono. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION January 25, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commissioners FROM: Naty Kopenhaver SUBJECT: Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Attached is a copy of the document submitted by Mr. Osvaldo Tappata to the Riverside County Transportation Commission at the January 12, 2005, as it related to the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. He requested that the document be distributed to members of the Commission. Attachment i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Agreement No. 05-25-535 for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-25-535* for the Western Riverside County Commuter c Rail Feasibility Study for a not to exceed amount of $ 150,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $150,000 of re -allocated LTF funds and increase the FY 2004-05 rail operating budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2004-05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. *This item is scheduled to be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee on January 7th. The recommendation will be presented to the Commission. This is forwarded to the Commission prior to the review of the Committee to meet the mail out and posting requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC staff is participating at both technical and management levels in the development of three separate five -county strategic efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: • Metro/ink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30 -year_ commuter rail strategic plan for current _service and planned_ extensions with a timeline for completion by August 2005.. The Riverside County geographic scope is the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines with the planned Perris Valley Line (PVL) extension. 1 Agenda Item 141 Mr. 63 Osvaldo Avea in Bardmoor 92220-5463 Banning, Banning, 92 • Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan A 30 -year plan that reflects regional agreement on a phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern California, and determine how best to minimize the impacts of freight movement (truck, train, airport) on local communities, the existing transportation system, and the environment. The timeline for completion is Spring 2006 in order to provide .imely__ input to the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The Riverside County geographic scope includes, at a minimum, the following freeways - 1-10, 1-15, SR 60, SR 91, SR 86, and corresponding freight rail lines and related cargo airports. • Five -County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture A joint advocacy effort with BNSF and UP railroads to develop new short-term federal funding and long-term public -private financing mechanisms for port - generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the SCAG region. The Riverside County geographic scope includes Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects and rail capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP main lines that parallel the SR 91 and 1-10 freeways. These activities in the Southern California basin will result in an assessment of passenger and freight rail capacity requirements that will require some form of _public subsidy_.__ In response to these activities, the Commission authorized staff at its November 10, 2004 meeting to develop and release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a ,Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. This effort will allow the Commission to determine if additional extensions, beyond the PVL Project,should_be assessed in the regional study efforts. _ Selection Process The RFP was released on November 19, 2004 with a mailing to 35 firms. The RFP was also posted on the agency website. The Commission received five proposals by the deadline of December 13, 2004. The proposals were reviewed by the Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the Cities of Banning, Hemet, and Riverside, the agencies of Southern California Regional Rail Authority and RCTC, and Schiermeyer Consulting Services. The Evaluation Committee will meet on January 7th and a recommendation will be presented to the Commission at its January 12th meeting. Agenda Item 8 93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Funding for the Study Previously allocated Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds are available to fund this study, however, a budget adjustment and Short Range Transit Plan Amendment is needed to authorize the expenditure of funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $ 150,000 Source of Funds: Re -allocated LTF Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 103-25-85101 P4201 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1 dra,14,-uy o Date: 12/20/2004 1 Agenda Item 8 94 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER Banning, January 12, 2005 To: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) From: O.Henry Tappata, Banning Chamber of Commerce Transportation Adviser Subject: Award of Agreement No. 05-25-535 for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study In my opinion, the consideration for the award you are discussing today is right, however, the allocation for those funds is wrong, for the following reasons: 1. The feasibility for the Commuter Rail Transportation for the San Gorgonio Pass (I am assuming this is the area you have under consideration in Riverside Co.) has been proven over and over again during the past two years in which I have dedicated time and effort on that same subject resulting in the enclosed brochure with newspaper articles, my own letters, and answers, to all corresponding authorities that may share some decision responsibility ,such as, City and County Officials, as well as to Congress Representatives from Sacramento and Washington D. G, and even to our present Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose delegated response letter is included hereof My only request to you, RCTC Delegates, is to please read the enclosed material, and at the same time remember the speech that Mr. Schwarzenegger gave during his recently State of the Union Address in Sacramento, when he declared war to lobbyism and to conflict of interests influencing official decisions in favor of powerful monority interests, through legal but however unethical means, such as, political pressure, planted newspaper articles, or political threats "Godfather" style, like: "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse.." 2. If you consider the enclosed material as insufficient proof, please consider the motivation and results (still not made public) of the completed feasibility study RCTC requested from Berkeley University on intercity mass transportation subject, based on Bus mode only, which findings could be applicable as well to railroad transportation on that same route That Berkeley study cost us taxpayers (including yourselves) $579,524 dollars, and was completed about September 2003 with no public accountability. Will this Railroad study be similar to that Bus study? 3. Another argument respect the feasibility of the railroad alternative, is the fact that at one time Banning had a Railroad station which was destroyed by fire many years ago, and was never reconstructed If it was feasible many years ago, when Banning was only a small town, why not again today, during the explosive area growth we are undergoing in the Pass area? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. In case you prefer not to read enclosed brochure, let me quote paragraph 5. of a letter I received from the Department of Transportation, District 8, dated January 26, 2004, in response to my appeal to Governor Schwarzenegger on the subject, Quote: "The Southern California Association of Governments' Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan contains a recommendation for Developing a major transit center to serve Banning/Beaumont/Calimesa area. The center would cost approximately $6 million dollars and could be completed as early as 2007, if projected funds are available" end of quote. So much for another proof of feasibility, and even financing for the immediate project Please, no more delays with budgetary restrictions and burying the need at the end of 20/30 years in strategic plans. (I personally believe in only 5 -year strategic planning, because study parameters can change dramatically in a much shorter time) The study money now being considered could well be applicable to the research and negotiation for the location of the "Park and Ride" suggestion among the different communities it will serve, and for the required infrastructure plan to accomplish it, as well as for the negotiation with Amtrak and Metrolink to extend their service once the station is completed I am also sure that your able and capable Planning Committee can accomplish such a task by themselves with their experience, without recurring to costly outside consultants. If you wish to discuss with me such alternatives, I am at your disposition, free of charge, for the benefit not only of Banning where I reside, but for the whole Pass Area. If my background and experience on the transportation field could be questionable in your committee, I suggest for you to ask your Supervisor Marion Ashley, and our Banning Councilmant and ex -mayor Mr. Art Welch, both of whom know me sufficiently, and whom I believe, seat as well in your Transportation Committee. Thank you for your consideration, and let us help our Governor, in your capacity as elected officials, to reduce beaurocratic procedures, and the spending of our tax money to accomplish some for our community needs under your responsibility. O.Henry Tappata. 6328 Bardmoor Ave. Banning, CA. 92220 (951) 845-2585 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Banning, December 3, 2004 Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger California Governor State Capitol, 1st Floor Sacramento, CA.95814 Dear Mr. Schwarzenegger: The subject of this letter is similar to others I have written to you in the recent past, reference the need to provide a railway stop, on existing tracks, in the San Gorgonio Pass area, which involves several small cities including Cabazon, where the Morongo Indian Casino is located, with its magnificent $250 million hotel to be officially inaugurated in a few days. Governor, I agree with your Indian negotiations to obtain from them more contributions than they have been given so far. They can obviously afford your expected increment, but what I think they might resent, in my opinion , is for all the extra taxes you are trying to impose on them, to be used exclusively by the State in other areas and purposes, than to help the development of the local communities nearby their Reservation. Let me add that the Morongo Indians, in our case, are very conscious and responsive to the needs of our San Gorgonio Pass area. There is no charity effort in this community, in which Casino Morongo is not always involved as a main sponsor. To mention a few: the magnificent effort of "Carol's Kitchen", a local institution most probably unknown to you and your staff who is feeding without questions, the poor people of this area with a daily meal, using the good will of our several churches in the Pass area. In our Presbyterian church alone, located in Beaumont (an adjacent city to Banning), more than 120 meals average are served at noon on every Wednesday including holidays; another big charity effort is also conducted by a Banning community of about 5,000 residents where I live: our yearly Sun Lakes Charity event, which has contributed tens of thousands of dollars in the past few years, for the benefit of our community, such as for the current San Gorgonio Hospital expansion (the only hospital for the San Gorgonio Pass), actively pursued by our total community effort, including and especially, from our Morongo Indian Reservation. I recently overheard that the Morongo Casino has informed those charity institutions, that no matter the outcome of their negotiations with you, favourably or not, they will always honor their commitment of participation... (very decent of them). There are many other direct contributions in which Casino Morongo is a major participant: the San Gorgonio Hospital already mentioned; donations to our 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Police and Fire departments; for the development of our local airport, from which they will benefit directly, because the increased traffic it will generate for their new hotel On this subject Governor, let me also suggest for a portion of the future tax increases funds you are currently negotiating with the Morongo Casino and Hotel, to be allocated for the local need of improvement of our local public transportation system, to include a railroad station station in the Banning/Beaumont/Cabazon area. We used to have one many years ago, but it burned down and was never rebuilt, at least during the my 12 years of residency in Banning. Our community is basically of low income majority, according to the last 2,000 census, with a large colony of legal and illegal aliens of Latin descent, and recently with the addition of a new one, of Hmong ancestry; most of these residents, some of them without jobs, or with part of our low income retired people, who sometimes to keep up with their standard of living. must supplement their needs with the charity help I referred before, and/or with our local Welfare Department office in Banning. In other words, Governor, we are trying to fulfil our community needs among ourselves, with our charity contributions and volunteer work in many areas such as school education, police department, and other non-profit public services, like the San Gorgonio Hospital mentioned above. We all know what are our basic needs to survive in this world: food, shelter, clothing, health care, and affordable transportation needs, in that priority order. In our S. Gorgonio Pass, we are lucky to have so many giving people as residents, through the institutions I have already mentioned, plus others that I have not, such as Rotary, Kiwanees, Soroptimist, Masons, Elks Club, political clubs,etc., most of them contributing with money, for scholarship purposes, and other needs for the less fortunate people that cannot afford them, for whatever reasons... IN SUMMARY: 1. We need a "Park and Ride"station for the San Gorgonio Pass area. This station will allow our residents to embark and disembark passengers transported by the Amtrak Sunset Limited service, which currently passes through this area (3) times a week, connecting from Los Angeles with (7) different Southern States up to Florida (the nearest stations to take this service are Riverside Downtown Station, about 45 minutes West of us by freeway #10, and Palm Springs to our East, about 35 minutes away via Freeway #10 as well). This station could service as well as a future Metrolink extension from Riverside city to Palm Springs and beyond, which is now programmed to start in 2009, "should the money be available", according to RTA and RCTC, the County organisations responsible for providing us with that extension. 1 2. Our request has been ignored, so far, by those responsible parties, with the excuse that there is no money available, because available and previouly allocated transportation funds have been used for other priority purposes in our County. It is also said now, by our news media and RTA and RCTC Directors, that "Governor Shwarzenegger is depleting our existing County transportation funds to assist the balancing of our California debt" (from our County Press Enterprise newspaper). 3. Based on the premises mentioned above, and on our urgent need for the station as passenger and freight traffic on our Freeway #10 (only trunk route available in the Pass) is increasing geometrically, as it is our population in the Pass area. It is absolutely necessary then, to reduce that freeway traffic congestion, with the railroad alternative, not costly for the time being, but ignored due to assigned priorities, and from lobby pressure of freeway construction companies, dominating the RTA and RCTC Boards for the allocation of those transportation funds 4. If your negotiation with our Morongo Indian Reservation could include the allocation by the State of part of those increased tax funds, destined to finance that "Park and Ride"passenger station we need for the San Gorgonio Pass, it would be most appreciated by all our Pass residents. The station could also be used eventually as a Metrolink station, besides' Amtrak's. I am almost sure that Morongo Indian Reservation will welcome that opportunity, as that railroad extension will definitely help them to attract more business for them from California and other states served by the Amtrak service now passing bye, and for commuters working in their premises (eventually about 5,000 employees, per Mr. Maurice Lyons, their Indian Chairman). Please, dear Governor, we need your help to improve our transportation needs, as explained on the attached booklet issue (previously sent to you), which has taken more than two years to complete, without getting any tangible results, not even a logical evaluating study from an unbiased professional consultant like Berkeley University, contracted in the recent past to study only bus intercity service for this area. May I suggest that you perhaps contact your friend and adviser Mr. Jim Brulte, as well as our U.S. District Representative, Mr. Jerry Lewis, and our ex- U.S.District Representative, Ms. Mary Bono, all of whom I believe, I have kept very much up-to-date with our request on the current transportation problem in the San Gorgonio Pass, which is getting worse as time passes bye With my best wishes for you and your family for the upcoming year-end holidays , I remain, Truly Yours, O.Henry Tappata Retiree, Transportation Adviser for the Banning Chamber of Commerce 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRIBES: The,grovez'nior said Indian casino men would help close`' ` Califortlia's budget gap. BY JIM MILLER AND MICHELLE DeARMONO TOE PRESS OffeiFfirat A year after Gov. Schwarzen- egger pledged to extract money from California's gaming tribes, the state has collected a slim fraction of what he promised with no guarantees of getting more money for the coming budget. Schwarzenegger, who initial- ly wanted 8500 million from the tribes, • signed a budget that banked on $300 million in casino revenue this fiscal year from new gaming compacts. he trimmer agreements also called for a $1 billion bond financed by I tribes to repay transportation loans to thegeneralfund. One consultant estimated the state will receive only about one-third of the revenue expect- ed from new compacts. State officials could not verify Friday bow much money the I state has received. Four gaming tribes that add- ed slot machines under the 1 1 IN LOCAL st-Disputedslots removed at Pechanga casino. 8 SECTION swimmer compacts had paid the state' about $2 million,. naria- chine fees through Septetriber,. according,; to the California' Tribal Business Alliance. A sec- otidT (c .' payment, covering the last three months of 2004, is due at the ends of the month. Meanwhile, the bond" has not been said :because of a -lawsuit challenging the compacts' con- stitutionality. "He's got himself in a spot there, and this is what mes from declaring .victory before he's won," said Gene Raper, a consultant for the Agua Cali- ente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which did, not sign a deal with the governor. "He was: terribly optimistic that everybody was going to comeand give money. There's no reason to believe any of the existing (gaming) tribes are willing to negotiate for any of the kinds of dollars he's talking about." fepartinent of Finance spokesman HD. Palmer dis- agreed that the gaming revenue projections were overly opti- SEE GA:MING/BACKPAGE SS to re ill ;n - Ay lid in to .ng ;ter en - per 1E PRESS -ENTER) MENDED KM 41 !nestle. He declined to discuss how much gaming revenue will be included in the 2005-06. spending plan. "It was based on an assess- ment at the time of where we thought things were going to go," he said. Schwarzenegger negotiated revenue -sharing deals with nine tribes soine`of which don't have casinos yet.. Most" of the biggest ;yen L. Mayer, a'San Fran money -Wanking tribes, :thema- lawyer' for tree plaintiffs. jority of which are in the Inland Schwarzenegger.t'aces t area, haven't signed deals with battles this year intheI.el him and don'tappear any closer -cure, where some lawme tb.an 'they were last yc, ak Raper, whd raid lie Was stud led the galti ng eoinpaets, pre dieted Schwarzeriegger will col- lect $101 million this year from the tribes that signed new deals with the governor..•:Anothcr $9 mullion in annual revenue for the state will come from, new machines one of those tribes added, he predicted. Schwarzenegger touted the bond deal as an achievement in this week's State -of -the -State address, but said little else about Indian -gaming revenue. He did not mention the legal hitch. s ' " e signed asrecnients with tjtdian gaming tribes that.. should provi€le about a billion dollars or transportation this year. Not only will this improve California's highways, it will also create 16,006 new jobs' 'Schwarzenegger said \ icdnes- fiav during his speech.. Palmer acknowledged the Sl billion bond is in limbo, but said it will not increase the estimated $8.1 billion state bud- get shortfall for the current fiscal year. The state is not, ji lliRed to repay transportation accounts until after 201)5-06. `l'reasurer, Phil Angelides, a Democrat and outspoken critic of the governor's,' told Sehwar- zenegger late" last month that . the treasurer's office cannot self the bonds finless the admin- istration resolves the lawsuit or state lawyers assure the bond market in writing that the law- suit will be declared frivolous. "I believe no lawyer could write such a letter. 'l'hev'd he "He's got himself a spot there,,and this is what corner from declaring victory before he's won," GENE RAPER, CONSUUAN FOR THE AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF GAMMA A NM have balked. th. scompacts ,4ribes adore considering 1 ation that Would make it i difficult to get others enact Last summer, lawmaker: .used to ratify a compaci tween.th'e. Lytton Band of P Indians and S :hwarzenc' that would have create state's first urban casino. Assemblywoman Lone' -1 cock, 1) Perkelcy, whose t fs includes the .proposed ,y casino, has introduced teg tion that would require a 60 review before any ratifies votes. Some ,lawmakers , think state should consider a Mot rium on ratifying new compi Assemblyman Joe-- Nation, San Rafael, said he might traduce legislation to do so. "I think we ought to -tal deep breath and have a be assessment of the long -t. implications," he said. Howard Dickstein, a Sa niento attorney who repress some of the tribes that sig gaming deals last year Schwarzenegger, said,`prol als for a cooling -off period moratorium are bad ideas t likely will fail. "They're riot long -terns si tions. They don't do anyth for local governments, the si or tribes," he said. Furthermore, the lover to required under federal Ind gaming law to negotiate in g+ faith with tribes, Dickstein r ed. Reach Michelle DeArnord at t 3MR41441 nr mr{r?armnnriaina rim Henry 0. Tappata 6328 W Bardmoor Ave. Banning, CA 92220-5463 Banning, May 2004 U.S. Congress California Representative (41stDistrict) Honourable Mr. Jerry Lewis Present Dear Mr. Lewis: We welcome you on your visit to our San Gorgonio Pass area. We are very happy that you have accepted our Banning's Mayor invitation (Mr. Art Welch) to visit us, as we are presently involved in a long range plan to develop our city and area in general, into a bustling community, with the volunteered assistance of our own residents; however, we definitely need your support.. Here in Banning and vicinity cities, we happen to be a melting pot of past successful retirees from California and other States, of present young business entrepreneurs, who wish to make our city known in California for what we have to offer in this area, and most important of all, by a law income silent majority (per 2000 census about $30-$35,000/yr. average) who need public city and intercity transportation modes. We have accomplished a lot of successful landmarks in the San Gorgonio Pass so far, most of them due to our own effort rather than from County, State, or with Federal assistance. To name a few: the Morongo Indian Reservation, with its development of a 23 story hotel (with completion by the end of this year), and with additional investments bringing jobs (5,000) and revenue to this area; we have an airport capable of being operated with business jets; a forthcoming Drag Race Track expecting to attract about 10,000 people to its events; a successful Shopping Outlet Center in Cabazon, with 150 stores attracting hundreds of visitors a day; a major and well equipped health center (San Gorgonio Hospital) with current expansion plans with up-to-date health technology for this area, plus with yearly major city events attracting our residents, as well as visitors , such as the Cherry Festival and our Stagecoach Day festival, (sponsored by our City Chamber of Commerce); we have good recreational facilities that will be expanded, and a good city to be enhanced in the near future with better landscaping of trees and murals. These accomplishments will slowly, but with certainty, attract more businesses, residents, as well as commercial and other investments, as the current trend indicates. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 But we need help from our Representatives, as some of our needs are Regional, County, State and/or of Federal responsibility, and could not be solved by our resident participation alone... Our present immediate need is to take advantage of our railroad tracks, adjacent to our #10 freeway, crossing the heartland of our San Gorgonio Pass... The enclosed material will explain what are the objections to the use of those tracks for more passenger service, and what kind of benefits (economic and social) the Pass area could enjoy by creating a "Park and Ride Station", which eventually could accommodate future Metrolink service for commuters, as well as increased local tourist traffic through our Pass, via the existing Amtrak service to the East Coast.. The "Park and Ride Station" project for the San Gorgonio Pass, means a common effort involving consultations and negotiations with RCTC (County) as well as with AMTRAK (Federal), and that's where we need your help, Mr. Lewis, so those future (not firm), transportation plans for 2006-2009, could be accomplished instead in the very near future: 2004-2006. At this time in the transportation field, we consider ourselves as a "forgotten" portion of Riverside County, so much that sometimes I wish we could belong perhaps to San Bernardino County, or even better, to a new County based in Palm Springs, with jurisdiction up to Blythe, currently also part of Riverside. You are a very long time successful and powerful California Representative in Congress, Mr.Lewis, and we are very proud to have you now as our California Representative, as we were once proud of having Mr. Sony Bono, and later the very capable and helpful Ms. Mary Bono before you. Thank you for your visit and attention to our needs in the San Gorgonio Pass area. Truly and Respectfully Yours, • " e r1' appa A Banning, CA. Resident 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-3 Inland Empire Mass Transportation Thoughts (3/104) 4 Letter from Gov. Schwarzenegger's Office (4/29/04) 4-5 Letter from CA. Department of Transportation (1/26/04) 7 Letter to CA.Rep. Ms.Mary Bono (10/1/03) 8 Letter from CA. Rep. Ms.Mary Bono (10/2/03) 9-10 Suggestion to Banning City Council (9/12/03) 11 Sunset Limited Service Advertisement from Amtrak's Brochure 12 Layout of Metrolink Network in Greater L.A. area (1/20/03) 13 Newspaper Article about Mr.Bush/Amtrak Focus (11/28/03) 14-15 Letter from CA. Department of Transportation (8-18-03) 16 Letter from CA. Rep. Ms. Mary Bono (7/31/03) 17 (11/21/02) 18-19 a CC i4 ti (11/05/02) 20-22 Letter from RCTC (6/28/02) 23-24 Letter from RTA (4/26/02) 25-29 Essay on Rapid Transit Systems (4/19/02) 30 So. Cab Population Statistics per Year 2000 Census. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Banning, March 2004 Thoughts about Mass Transportation in the Inland Empire, from Riverside to P.Springs, for the members of Banning's General Plan Advisory Committee team (GPAC), in consideration to the Traffic and Circulation subject for Banning residents, to be discussed in future meeting& In my opinion, proper East-West access to the Inland Empire through the San Gorgonio Pass from L.A. to P.Springs, is based on two major modes of transportation between those two cities: 1) Railway tracks 2) Freeway #10 1) Railway Tracks Totally controlled today by freight traffic between the Port of Los Angeles and East Coast destinations. The owner of those railtracks, UPRR (Union Pacific Railroad), does not want to provide passenger service because it interferes with its freight service, a slow but very profitable and demanding service for them However, they could legally be forced by State authorities, through "Eminent Domain "reasons, to provide more needed passenger service than its current Amtrak's Sunset Limited, which goes East-West through the Inland Empire three times a week (only passenger service through the existing railtracks). Or the State could negotiate (both financially and operationally) with UPRR for the installation of a new set of tracks between Riverside and Palm Springs, adjacent to the existing ones in their property, with the negotiating concession that they could use it for freight purposes when not used for passenger service, like during late night to early morning hours. The problem with this last alternative is that the State does not want to spend now any money from Measure A in our area, because it has already been allocated by previous long range plans to other priorities, perhaps less important and less beneficial for the overall travelling public. As a result, their plan contemplates for us 2006 and beyond to accomplish that requirement, even if the need is now, and probably less costlier than for tomorrow. Perhaps for general long range plans (like ours), we should include an accountability clause, to check on the timely accomplishment of the long term goals, with parameters as originally agreed upon. 1 Freeway#10: A great freeway for our East-West traffic! However, currently almost saturated with passenger traffic as well as by freight service through trucks and big rigs, with heaviest traffic during commuter time (early morning and late afternoon), and during week -ends by passenger traffic to Palm Springs and beyond You may have observed, that during the past year the truck and big rigs traffic in Fwy.#10 has almost doubled, and as a result, driving car safety has decreased This truck traffic increase, not only affects the passenger traffic safety by taking over our limited freeway lanes, but increases as well the air pollution in the area with their fuel exhaust fumes (main cause of smog). There is little than Banning itself can do to reduce this heavy traffic within its city limits, except perhaps to create sections of frontage roads parallel and close to #10, or perhaps to create a detour for the freight traffic (truck route) to bypass our city center. However, I see this as a partial solution to the bigger regional problem. The responsibility lies then on the elected officials controlling RTA's actions, not on Banning,Beaumont, and adjacent cities alone, so I suggest to put pressure on Riverside RTA through a coordinated regional request, by all city councils and Chamber of Commerce from this area (a kind of a grass route request). There is and old saying in Argentina, where I come from: "el que no flora no mama", or translated: "he who would not cry, will not get fed": So I suggest to make a written request to RTA and State authorities, with all the officials from the Pass area, for an immediate solution to our current mass passenger traffic problem on freeway #10. Some Alternatives for Banning to Improve our CurrentTraffic: An immediate improvement for the #10 passenger traffic, would be to create a "Diamond Lane" between the cities of Riverside and Palm Springs , exclusively for use of multiple passenger service, and to restrict freight traffic to the slow lane, with middle lane for them for passing purposes only. The creation of a "Park and Ride" Amtrak station somewhere in Banning (or adjacent communities for that matter), could be another immediate feasible alternative; it would serve as a hub for city buses routes offering transfer capabilities, so city passengers can have access to any area of the city, without need for any other supplemental mode of transportation to reach them, but with efficient frequency of service, like in most Third World countries cities, where their residents cannot afford to buy and maintain a car. 1 1 1 1 Y 1 Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 In most world countries, car transportation is a luxury; in the Inland Empire is a necessity... In Third World countries, mass public transportation is almost considered a welfare benefit.. in the Inland Empire is usually ignored by those responsible to develop it.. The "Park and Ride" alternative would be the first step for a possibly easily negotiated Amtrak stopover for their Sunset Limited train service to the East Coast, which would open access to East Coast cities and States (7 States and 21 direct stations, plus connections to other State terminals), for the benefit of area residents who would not have the need to go to L.A. Union Station, Ontario, or Palm Springs to board it Later, and the most important goal, is to be prepared for the inevitable Metrolink extension from Riverside to Palm Springs, for the benefit of hundreds of commuters, tourists, Senior Citizens, students, Cabazon's 150 stores, Morongo's new 23 story high hotel and casino, etc. of this area. I am referring to people who do not have a car or that may be tired of using their own in a crowded freeway, preferring to travel, if given the choice, in a cheaper, safer, more timely, and even more comfortable mode of transportation by leaving the driving to somebody else The Truck Route Suggestion: The creation of a truck route to bypass the cities of Beaumont and Banning from the intersection of Freeways #10 with #60, and up to perhaps Palm Springs, is another idea, even if more costly; but again, that would be the total responsibility of RTA, as they are supposed to provide alternatives geared to improve traffic within its County. The fact is, that the Banning/Beaumont area is also part of that county, besides Moreno Valley, Perris, Temecula, etc. where they seem to concentrate their attention , their effort, as well as our local tax money, for whatever reasons they have to give them that priority... Again, the pressure on RTA and our State Transportation Officials to achieve these improvements, has to come from our elected City, County and State officials, who should be the spokesmen for the silent majority who elected them, and who, like in most of our regional case, consist in low income people trying to survive their current cost of living. If these elected officials could live up to their campaign promises (ie.: " I'll fight for you!) we would probably not be discussing this traffic problem today... O.Henry Tappata, Banning's GPAC Team Member, and Chamber of Commerce Transportation Advisor 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 April 29, 2004 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Mr. Henry O. Tappata 6328 West Bardinoor Avenue Banning, California 92220-5463 Dear Mr. Tappata, Thank you for your correspondence to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Governor Schwarzenegger appreciates hearing from constituents and the issues that matter to them. iowcvcr. the issue you wrote about falls under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County ransportation Commission. In order to ensure that your concerns are properly addressed, you may wish to contact that office directly at: The Riverside County Transportation Commission Post Office Box 12008 Riverside, California92502-2208 (909) 787-7141 We hope you find this information useful. Again, thank you for your letter. Office of Constituent Affairs 1 GOVERNOR ARNO1 I) SCHWAR7FNF(:r:FR e Cdr Ud\AF\IT/l ('1Tkiln\:Ia "cot I Inn e1 a STATE OF CALI RAIN ----F 1$JVI SS. TRANSPORTATION AND ITOS:STNG AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 DISTRICT DIRECTOR (MS 1201) 464 WEST 4TH STREET, 6TH FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-4055 FAX (909) 383-6239 TTY (909) 383-6300 January 26, 2004 Mr. 0. Henry Tappata 6328 West Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220-5463 Dear Mr. Tappata: Flex your potter! Be energy efficient! Thank you for your letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding the possibility of establishing rail transit service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. A number of developments have taken place that may affect the feasibility of such service. I would like to update you on specific developments that affect the San Gorgonio/Banning Pass area: 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Dept linent of Transportation (Caltrans) have been evaluating the feasibility of establishing an intercity passenger rail route between the following cities: Los Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs, and Indio. Caltrans is now proposing that e ro ink inj is e c>�ch aervi .e in fiscalyP�r �OOf Q7 b ginning with a sa.0 uathiii. „d l _ addig _a_ second ropnd trip 2008-2009. This fl -2e recommendation is contained in the California State Rail Plan: 2001-02 to n/o'1 n, e eel 'C( 2010-11. This. new-- service would require an investment of approximatelyS . w ,,150 million for new track and track improvements. RCTC is working closely w, ti)v,./",h with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Caltrans on this issue. The State's current budget crisis may affect the financial feasibility of this project if State funds are required for its implementation. 2. In November 2002, Riverside County voters approved a thirty-year extension of Measure "A", the County's half -cent sales tax for transportation projects. Uri er tie 'easure's Expenditure Plan, $390 million is earmarked for expanded commuter rail service, implementation of intercity bus services and continuation and expansion of programs to assist commuters, the elderly, and the disabled. These funds will be available beginning in 2009 and will run to 2039. How these funds will be apportioned among various transit projects is still under discussion. Please also note that these transit -related funds are in addition to $274 millions which was allo,ato n 1 , a,..tb,,g„, n Ina easure "A". 'a' -Caimans improves mobility across California" Mr. Tappata January 26, 2004 Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. SunLine currently provides weekday express service —called SunLink— connecting the Coachella Valley with Cabazon, Banning, Beaumont, Loma Linda, and Riverside. At the downtown Riverside station, SunLink connects to Riverside Transit Agency and Omnitrans buses and to Metrolink trains — providing connections all over the Inland Empire and to Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and Ventura_ Counties. A second Sunlink line connecting the Coachella Valley with the city of San Bernardino is now under consideration. 4. The Southern California Association of Governments' Draft 2004 Regional *Transportation an contains a recommen ation or eve o in a ma or transit Qenter to serve t e Ban= eaumon a imesa area. a center wou cost approximately 6 million and could be.completed as early as 2007 if toiecte, d fiad_ar se availal e. - ���r /'i per'- '1: e '7' I would like to assure you of Caltrans' continuing support of rail and other transit alternatives in the corridor between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. Your continued interest in this corridor and your active participation in the debate will help to ensure that your views and opinions are shared among the various agencies which are responsible for managing transportation facilities in your community. We appreciate your interest and look forward to the day when there is a wide choice of travel modes through the Pass area. If YQu have an further questions, leease contact Mr. Gary Green, of my staff, at 383-592 , °' y-- ISOM Sincerely, ANNE MAYER District Director "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Banning, October 1, 2003 Ms. Mary Bono Congress of the United States 44th.District, CA. Dear Ms.Bono: It has been sometime since I wrote to you about this subject: Metrolink extension from Riverside to Palm Springs and beyond to Indio. We have exchanged several views in the past two years on this subject, most of them concerning the lack of money for the project and possibly not enough traffic. On the subject of money, I believe now that President Bush himself has open the door for the project, at least to start it, when he suggested for Amtrak to concentrate more on Intercity service rather than long range lines (see enclosed newspaper article). As Amtrak is already going through Beaumont/Banning area (see attached material), I believe that a good start would be for the existing Amtrak service to make a stop in this area for our benefit and surroundings, as we are some distance away from Palm Springs and Ontario, the two existing nearest Amtrak stations. On the enclosed material you can see that I have suggested to our City Council, the creation of a "Park & Ride"Amtrak station. We will be discussing the subject in the near future: like where to locate the station, who will pay for it, how to ask Amtrak to make a stop, etc. In that sense I would like to hear your advise if there is chance that the project could be incorporated in the Amtrak budget (please, not in 2010!). I am at this time working with Russ Bogh's office relative to the projection made by the California Departhent of Transportation. They promised to send him that study which we will evaluate to current standards on traffic projections. I would appreciate your advise on how to pursue the initial part of the Metrolink (now Amtrak) project, and that is, to build the station and to ask Amtrak to make a quick stop on the existing service, to embark and disembark passengers in our area. Thank you very much for your attention. Very Truly Yours, O. Henry Tappata 6328 Bardmoor Ave Banning, CA. 92220 r/4h;. I fr•,ned 1 COMMITTEE ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEES. COMMERCE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION :NERGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET warp $ono Qongregg of the initeb 4§tateg Mr. Henry Tappata 6328 Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220 Dear Mr. Tappata: 45113 1Bi5tritt, California October 2, 2003 WASHINGTON OFFICE 404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-5330 FAX: (2021 225-2961 DISTRICT OFFICES. 707 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY SURE 9 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 (760) 320-1076 FAX: (760) 320-0596 1600 EAST FLORIDA AVENUE SUITE 301 HEMET, CA 92544 (909) 658-2312 FAX: (9091 652-2562 Thank you for contacting my Palm Springs district office regarding the metrolink extension from Riverside to Palm Springs. The address on your correspondence shows that you are in the 41st district of California. resspersot is Honorable Jerr Lewis, 1150 Broo si e Avenue, Suite J-5, e an s, • My office has taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to Jerry Lewis' district office. I am sure you will be hearing from that office soon. j1,/'d,^7 I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention. MB : aa cc: Sincerely, member or congress Honorable Jerry Lewis, 1150 Brookside Avenue, Suite J-5 'Redlands, CA 92373 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Banning, September 12, 2003 Suggestion by O.Henry Tappata, offered to Banning City Council (to be presented at a town meeting on 9/17/03, at SLCC Clubhouse): CREATE NOWA BANNING'S AMTRAK PARK/RIDE STATION WHY: Because we need a transportation hub for city and intercity service It will be a passenger terminal for bus, possibly railroad, taxis, dial -a-ride service, etc., in other words: a connecting transportation center FOR WHOM: For the benefit of everybody that will use that service AND WHO WOULD THEYBE?: commuters of all kinds, low income people who for economic reasons prefer public service to ride his own car; senior citizens who may probably be denied drivers licenses in the future (for whatever reason); minors, disabled people, even for illegal immigrants living in this area (forget giving them driver's licenses, but give them an option!), etc. WHY NOW AND NOT IN 2010, LIKE SOME PROJECTIONS INDICATE? Because Amtrak is currently passing three times a week through Banning going East to Miami (Sunset Limited service) WHAT WOULD BE THE BENEFIT?: An Amtrak station would open up for us accessibility to 44 -stations in 7 different states, as well as opening up a connection with the existing Metrolink service running now in 6 different California counties (see brochurefliers attached). Passengers could board and disembark Amtrak here, instead of going to Ontario or Palm Springs (currently the nearest stations), or farther away in Riverside, San Bernardino, or even Los Angeles Union Station FOR WHOSE BENEFIT?: For whoever living in the nearby area, Yucaipa, Cherry Valley, Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, etc., would like to use it WHO WOULD USE IT THE MOST?: Right now, travellers like me who would now prefer to ride a train rather than going by airline, or by our own car. Later on, when frequency of service and Metrolink connection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 allows it, by every -day commuters now using cars or our limited public intercity rapid transit equipment, using our already congested freeway 10 WHY NOW AND NOT IN 2010?: Because the service is being offered by Amtrak already (permit already obtained from the railtrack owner, UPRR), and because there should not be any major expense to take advantage of it, except for us to build the required Park& Ride station, and to request Amtrak to make a quick stopover to board and disembark our area passengers ISN'T THERE AN EFFORT BY BEA UMONT FOR THIS PROJECT? Yes there is, as I found out today (September 12) through an article written by Hal Lowe from Record Gazette (enclosed), who together with Press Enterprise can testify that we have suggested for Banning this city transportation hub for the past two years now... It is a pity that Banning, a larger city, did not consider the project before Beaumont My suggestion is now for both cities to get together for the best location for the project, on either city, as Amtrak or Metrolink will eventually make only one stop to serve the immediate area (I personally do not care flit is done in Beaumont or Banning, as long as the project can be accomplish soon for our benefit) WHERE WOULD YOU GET THE MONEY FOR THE STATION? Our own President Bush has recently said (see enclosed newspaper article) that he would prefer Amtrak to concentrate more on Intercity service. I am sure he meant to assist Amtrak with Federal money if necessary. The station would open the door for Amtrak to start a commuter service for Banning (main long term reason) when the required negotiations between the railroad owner (UPRR) and Amtrak, for additional service frequencies for commuters and other riders, can be accomplished We will then be able to get fast comfortable, and inexpensive service between Banning and neighbouring or distant cities qt kc`i','Gc G'(, Henry Tappata P.S. Thank you Banning City Council, especially to Randy Anstine new City Manager, for inviting us! 1 S A&GELES.CA mve A, . we:aa«z& wa aev mescrnrry ,nm_tlyMeng. nivv4y> r,Tfrecturng »m,r� 9e,vmvrr 44, met Um 3 w,wgr »m®' 1 Proposed MetroI from _Internet - 9�w em i z t o Greater Los Angeles .a k Data. dated 174W2005) ice there is nt .proposed , Folk* Extensirrn ro the ', v ®rside OraneCounty' E e- p . County Lest- • Line ;;' er /de • like/ion ^rrrvots LA) ry Ixzlsnd Empire v 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .0 :e tg •e s I I i- il.0413 iiush wants Amtrak focus on short hauls RAIL: The restructuring plan sent to Congress has no price tag and few details. THE Assoc.IATEu PRESS WASHINGTON —The Bush ad- ministration says ending Am- trak's monopoly on long-dis- tance passenger rail service would result in reliable trains running shorter distances be- tween cities, relieving conges- tion on highways and at air- ports. But such a transformation will require a "leap of faith" that it will work, according to senior Transportation Department of- ficials who briefed reporters about a bill to restructure Am- trak. • The proposed legislation was sent to Congress on Monday, a year and a half after the Bush administration's restructuring plan was first floated. it carries no price tag and has no details about what money - losing lines would be eliminat- ed and what new rail corridors would be promoted. Critics say the administration is ign'bring short-term prob- lems that threaten Amtrak's vi- ability while it pushes its long- term plan to force the states• to pick up more of the costs. "The gravity of this immedi- ate need to maintain Amtrak's operational reliability vastly overshadows any debate over the plan introduced today." said Amtrak President David Gunn. Gunn, who wasn't consulted on the plan, said service stopped for 24 hours between New York and Boston when overhead wires fell apart two weeks ago. Electric engines are going out of service as fast as they can he rebuilt and two bridges in Connecticut are in clanger of failing, which would stop service between Boston and New Haven. "'1'h' Bush adininistral ion, which is represented on Am- trak's board of directors, has averted crisis over the past 12 months. even when this ap- proach has taken t.ts to the elev- enth hour," Gunn said. But unless Amtrak is restruc- tured. the transportation offi- cials said the Bush administra- tion is only willing to give the railroad $900 million next year, half of what it says it needs to keep the trains running. The House Appropriations Commit- tee last week voted to allot $900 million. President Bush's plan has sup- port in Congress among those who want Amtrak to end its de- pendency on government cash and start turning a profit. The passenger railroad has re- ceived $26.6 billion in govern- ment subsidies during its 32 - year existence. The proposal doesn't end fed- eral subsidies. but it does seek to minimize them. Under the plan, over six years Amtrak would become three companies: a private passenger rail company that runs trains under contract to states; a com- pany that operates and main- tains the Northeast Corridor; and a government corporation that would retain Amtrak's rights to use freight railroad tracks and its corporate name. "They're trying their best to close it down," said Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C.. sponsor of a hill that would spend $4.6 billion annually for five years to up- grade Amtrak and invest in high-speed rail. "If you turn Amtrak over to the states. it's gone," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R -Texas, chairwoman of the surface transportation subcommittee. "Train tracks. just like our high- ways and airways, don't stop at the state line." Hutchison plans to introduce legislation this v ek that wilt spend substantially more than the administration proposes. 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA —BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Governor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 DISTRICT DIRECTOR (MS -1201) 164 WEST FOURTH STREET, 6TH FLOOR JAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-4055 FAX (909) 383-6239 TTY (909) 388-6300 August 18, 2003 Mr. Osvaldo Tappata 6328 W. Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220 Dear Mr. Tappata: Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Thank you for your letter to Governor Gray Davis concerning Metrolink service. We would like to present you with the following facts to address your concerns expressed in your letter. Both the Department of Transportation (Department) and Amtrak have indicated in the past that they would be interested in starting a short distance service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. Such a service is in Department's 10 -year Rail Plan and is also included in Amtrak's plan. These plans identify potential service needs but do not include funding for the services. This rail service to the Coachella Valley is also included in the region's financially constrained 20 -year 2001 Regional Transportation Plan. However, the expected funding is quite tenuous at this point and may not be provided as originally expected. In this case, due to low ridership projections and high implementation costs there will not likely be any new passenger rail service begun in the near futureA---n/o po !c ,57Z.D/E-s 49.tn.e.% As you are aware, early in 2002 the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) approached the UC Berkley Institute of Transportation Studies to assess the potential of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) demonstration project in Western Riverside County. The Consultants studied the entire RTA service area and determined that the selected routing for further study of a BRT in Western Riverside County should be along the alignments of the RTA Bus Routes 16 and 1 near Riverside due to the population density and the higher ridership projections necessary to support BRT. Other corridors were evaluated, but were not chosen due to the lower rider ship and fewer trip generations along the corridors. The Riverside Tansit Agency does not have any plan to further evaluate the Banning/Beaumont corridor using Metrolink Service due to the low ridership . ac, : <.!J p. ?'t.� i; r' r.'. . • _'- .� projections. - _ � d :rC 4 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ', j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ANNE MAYER District Director 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Tappata August 18, 2003 Page 2 Sunlink, a commuter service of Sun Line Transit operates daily; linking the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio pass cities to Riverside And Loma Linda. This service is provided four times daily based upon ridership demands levels. As the Banning/Beaumont area continues to grow the Sunlink operations may be re-evaluated for increased service. If you have any further questions, please contact Linda Grimes at f909) 383-_ 4147 or Gary Green at (909) 383-5926 Sincerely, 1 COMMITTEE. ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEES COMMERCE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET carp jSono QCongregg of the tateg Mr. Henry Tappata 6328 W. Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220 Dear Mr. Tappata: 450 Migtrirt, (atifornia July 31, 2003 WASHINGTON OFFICE. 404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-5330 FAX:(202)225-2961 DISTRICT OFFICES. 707 EAST TAMOUITZ CANYON WAY SUITE 9 PALM SPRINGS. CA 92262 (760) 320-1076 FAX: 1760) 320-0596 1600 EAST FLORIDA AVENUE SUITE 301 HEMET, CA 92544 (909) 658-2312 FAX: (9091 652-2562 Thank you for contacting me a.bout your desire to see Metrolink extend its service into the Palm Springs area. I appreciate hearing from you. As this service continues to move East (the Riverside line began operation on June 25, 2003), I am certain there will be thoughts to expand it even more. And, as the population continues to grow in the Inland Empire, there will be a need to ascertain the needs v -fr 6, of our transit systems. Because this is very much a state and ,u/e local issue, I know the County Riverside has engaged in jhodid6'� aggressive planning on this front. Rest assured, however, that I ': will continue to monitor this situation and consider your h' thoughts on the matter should there be consideration of this interest at the federal level. Again thank you for taking the time to write. For convenience, you can.sign up to receive regular email updates the 45th District me on issues important to http://www.house.'govjbono. Please other matters of mutual concern. MB/cmj your from at feel free to' contact me on Sincerely, MARY BONO Member of Congress 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COMMITTEE ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEES COMMERCE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION _NERGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Tarp Lono (ongre55 of tlje nitea tate5 44t1j District, California November 21, 2002 Mr. O. Henry Tappata 6328 W. Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220-5463 Dear Henry: Thank you for sending me a copy the Riverside Transit Agency. I WASHINGTON OFFICE 404 CANNON HOUSE OF OCE 8u OING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202)225-5330 Fnx: 12021225-2961 DISTRICT OFFICES 707 TAHOUItz CANNON WAV SATE 9 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 (7601 320-1076 FAX: (760) 320-0596 11401 HEACOCK STREET SUIrE 340 MoRENo VAI LEY, CA 92557 (9091 485-4827 Fax: (9091 485-4897 1600 EAs r Ft ORIpA AVFPr ICE SUITE 306 HEMET, CA 92544 19091658-2312 Fnx: (9091 652-2562 of your recent correspondence to appreciate hearing from you. It is. important that the citizens of our district keep me apprised of their views so that I can better represent you in Washington. Thank you for keeping me informed of your concerns related to rail service in the District. Again thank you for taking the time to write. For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me on issues important to the 44th District at http://www,house.gov/bono. Please feel free to contact me on other matters of mutual concern. MB/mcs Sincerely, MARY BONO Member of Congress 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COMMITTEE ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEES. COMMERCE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS i1arp J.6 ono Qorigreg5 of the V1niteb �tate5 440 30i5trict, Catifornia September 5, 2002 Mr. O. Henry Tappata 6328 W. Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220-5463 Dear Henry: (1 � WASHINGTON OFFICE 404 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-5330 FAX: (2021 225-2961 DISTRICT OFFICES. 155 SOUTH PALM CANYON SuIrE 823 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 17601320-1076 FAX: (7601 320-0596 11401 HEACOCK STREET SUITE 340 MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 (9091485-4827 FAX: (9091485-4897 1600 EAST FLORIDA AVENUE SUITE 306 HEMET, CA 92544 (9091 658-2312 FAX: (9091 652-2562 Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the future of our nation's railroad system. I appreciate hearing from you. The rail system in Europe is often looked at as a model of efficiency with wide -spread use and extensive routes. Unfortunately, lesser demand and the sheer size and sprawl of our great country makes duplication of this model extremely difficult. Our challenge for the future of American rail will be to balance geographic constraints and passenger demand with providing convenient and cost effective rail service. We also need to take into account the important benefits a railway commuting system brings, such as convenience for commuters and travelers, reducing pollution and the reduction in traffic on roadways. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 mandated that Amtrak be able to cover its operating expenses without federal funding by December 2002. In November 2001, the Amtrak Reform Council formally announced to the Congress that Amtrak would not meet this deadline. The Congress is now faced with the challenge of developing and evaluating options for the future of Amtrak and rail services across the nation. The Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2002 would appropriate a of $1.9 billion to the Secretary of Transportation for the of Amtrak for fiscal year 2003. Funding will be allocated capital expenditures, operating expenses, and certain rail security projects. total benefit for 1 1 1 1 Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 President George W. Bush recently proposed replacing the federal subsidies used to cover Amtrak's operating expenses with both state funding and Amtrak's own revenue. The President's proposal also includes contracting out certain services such as reservations, food service and maintenance. Furthermore, ownership of the Northeast Corridor route, which serves major cities such as Boston, New York and Washington D.C., would be transferred to a public partnership. However, the federal government would continue to pay certain capital costs of Amtrak. This proposal is an attempt to more fairly distribute the capital and operating expenses of Amtrak between the federal government, the states and the railroad itself. While the solvency of our national rail system is in question, any expansion must be very carefully examined. The key issue to be considered is the demand for railway service. Without sufficient demand, the costs of providing railway service can escalate to a level that eventually makes it wholly impractical to provide service. With these considerations in mind, I am approaching this issue cautiously. While some level of federal expenditure is appropriate to build infrastructure that serves such a great public interest, before I support any measures that expands the future routes for our nation's rails, I want to be confident that sufficient demand exists so that it will not further contribute to endless federal bailouts. I will continue to monitor railroad related legislation as it moves through the legislative process. Should relevant legislation come before the House of Representatives, I will be certain to carefully consider your thoughts on the matter. Again, thank you for contacting my office regarding this issue. For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me on issues important to the 44th District at http://www.house.gov/bono. Please feel free to contact me regarding other federal issues of mutual concern. MB/mcs MARY BONO Member of Congress 1 (.2D 1 iversideCounty ransportation Commission June 28, 2002 Mr. O. Henry Tappata 6328 W. Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220 Dear Mr. Tappata, 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside, California 9250i phone: (909)787-7141 • fax: (909)787-7920 • www.rctc.orl r 1`t'T P' The Riverside Transit Agency forwarded your letter of April 19, 2002 to me about Rapid Transit Systems or a Metrolink extension in Southern California from Riverside to Banning. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) plans and funds commuter rail services and service expansions within Riverside County with the commuter rail operator, Metrolink/Southern California Regional Rail Authority. The Commission's current commuter rail planning efforts focus on the construction of a new station in Corona and expanding parking capacity at current stations within the next three years, as well as doubling the current level of train service within the next ten years on the three Metrolink lines that directly serve Riverside County, the Riverside, Inland Empire -Orange County, and 91(Riverside-Fullerton-Los Angeles) Lines. The Commission is also in the planning stages to extend Metrolink service from downtown Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley on the Commission owned San Jacinto Branch Line by 2008. Mr. Tappata, the issue of providing passenger rail service to Banning has been studied in the past by RCTC and is more complicated. As you are aware, the cities of Banning and peaumont lie astride the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). This UPRR corricorridor is one cf the most important corridors for the carrier, connecting the ur of dor ....- flCi a wa u song Beach and Los Angeles with the southeast United States. Currently the only passenger service on this line is a thrice -weekly long distance train operated by Amtrak between Los Angeles and Florida. This train is known as the Sunset Limited. The "Sunset Limited" train operates through this area in the very early hours of the morning in both directions. The closest passenger station to the west is Ontario and the closest passenger station to the east is Palm Springs. This rail service primarily serves the leisure and tourism market. Because of the nature of the train and the poor hours at which it would call at a r/ nning/Beaumont station, this train would not likely enerate a great deal of patronage; ' "r ;r9r ; r j,r iu car` Wor N vertheless these cities could a roach Amtrak about establishin a statio t t is� ,uea for that train. The cities would be obligated to provide all required station facilities (platform at the tracks, parking lot, lighting and a secure shelter/building to protect passengers in the event of poor weather conditions. In addition, were Amtrak sou op �rtive of such a station, it would have to seek concurrent approval from the Union Pacific Railroad for a new station. The "Sunset Limited" train is often referred to as a Long Distance Intercity Train. In addition to whatever long distance intercity service Amtrak operates through this area, both the RCTC and the State of California have been evaluating the feasibility of establishing a Short Haul Intercity route between the following cities: Los Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, Banning/Beaumont, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage and Indio. The UPRR has indicated its firm opposition to any new passenger service on its tracks through this area. Notwithstanding this opposition, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) is now proposing to initiate such service in fiscal year 2006-07 with a single round trip, adding a second round trip in 2008-2009. This recommendation is contained in the California State Rail Plan: 2001-02 to 2010-11. CALTRANS has no unilateral powers to compel the UPRR to permit the operation of this train. ,ertheless_for iptcrc_it.Y traliias opposed to a commuter or Metrolink train), there are certain federal processes in place that can ultimately lead to an order QQapellin the railroad to operate intercity trraiins.s. The public agencies requesting the intercity may also be required to invest large sums in the physical infrastructure of the railroad as a condition of operating the service (some estimates place the capital investment �-%) or ,s ,p requirement at a minimum of $150 million for a new set of tracks). 1of needco' !%e f Metrolink train services fall into the broad category of regional or commuter services, as opposed to intercity services. In Southern California, Amtrak is the intercity rail operator while Metrolink is the commuter rail operator. Looking beyond whose logo is on the train, it is sometimes not easy to draw a firm line between commuter an,d short distance intercity services. In practice some short distance intercity services resemble in function commuter services and some longer distance commuter services resemble intercity services. Despite the difficulty in drawing a precise definitional boundary between the two types of services, the distinction is very important when discussing potential commuter rail services to places like Beaumont and Banning. As noted earlier Am.tra� no�s access rights to the tracks of private railroads likg UPRR., Metrolink and other commuter rail operators enjoy no such rights. Lacking such rights Metrolink and its member agencies have to negotiate business arrangements with railroads like the UPRR. Currently neither RCTC nor Metrolink have any rights to operate any trains over the Union Pacific railroad east of Colton. Neither agency have any plans to seek such rights as the primary orientation of both Metrolink and RCTC has been to provide peak hour rail service for home -to -work commuters. For commuters living in Beaumont/Banning, the existing major commuter stations at either nG nn' L' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 San Bernardino or Riverside have been seen as adequate to access the regional rail network for commuting purposes. At this time, travel demand from Beaumont/Banning is likely to be deemed insufficient to justify the large capital costs in extending Metrolink service over the UPRR to those cities. However, the most likely and potentially cost-effective rail service option is the d e onment of an nterclty service between Los Angeles and Indio through the cities of Beaumont andBanni,g. This service is currently supported by the CALTRANS and is ,recommended for implementation in the 2006/2007 budget year., There are numerous activities which must take place prior to service im lementation includin ac uisition of carsand locomotives for the service and negotiating an operatina a rPement wjth 111 Mr. Tappata, if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 787-7141 or by e-mail at swigginsnrctc.orq. Sincerely, Stephanie Wiggins Rail Program Manager Cc: Cis Leroy, RTA �an it I'S 0 fl o� 1 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 April 26, 2002 Mr. 0. Henry Tappata 6328 W. Bardmoor Avenue Banning, CA 92220 Dear Mr. Tappata: Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone:(909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 Thank you for your letter of April 19, 2002. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns. We a iee mat a •ooa raid transit s stem is needed throu•hout a i ornia. is continual y seeking unding for improved services and equipment in a fiercely competitive funding arena. Transportation funds are spread very thinly among highway, bus and rail projects, and some funding is not available for any type of mass transit but is earmarked for roadway improvements and roadway maintenance. As part of the recent Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), it has been shown that with highway improvements and funding for significant additional mass transit, by the year 2020 we will be living in complete gridlock. (P( n^; ^f i`CC^ r.<<'r RTA is not responsible for Metrolink service planning; the Riverside County Transportation Commission plans and budgets for services and service expansions with the Southern California Regional Rail Association (SCRRA). Extensions of any services into the pass area or the Coachella Valley would need to be analyzed by the RCTC. Stephanie Wiggins, Program Director, can be reached at 909/787-7141. The reason we are studying Bus Rapid Transit with the University of q � California at a �s eikeley is that, given ri, ht of way and cost constraints, o a it is the only viable �"�� G t,J �� i� e option for express mass transit services on major arterials within Western (4 `'' ' ` Riverside County. Using non-polluting compresses natural gas buses, the intent would be to limit the number of stops, provide a more direct and fast service, and attract riders who might not normally ride a somewhat slower bus. Regarding your questions on the costs and technical aspects of Metrolink, I have passed on your letter to Ms. Wiggins, and expect she will be able to respond to those concerns. She should also be able to respond to any of your other Metrolink questions. RTA ridership continues to increase and this year we expect a minimum 6% increase in passenger trips. We are also planning express inter -city services for next year, "Regional Flyers", consistent with our recently adopted Strategic Plan. There is currently a limited -stop service from Banning into Moreno Valley (Route 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. 0. Henry Tappata Page Two April 26, 2002 #35), with transfer opportunities into downtown Riverside and Metrolink. The cities of Banning and Beaumont are also planning to make service improvements within the pass area. If I can provide any further information, please contact me. Sincerely, Z/c. Cis LeRoy Director of Plannin CLR/mh cc The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator The Honorable Barbara Boxer, United States Senator Gone{ r' C) The Honorable Jerry Lewis _United States Congress, 40th District Representative 0,01' The Honorable Mary Bono, United States Congress, 44th District Representative The Honorable Gray Davis, California State Governor The Honorable Russ Bogh. California State Assembly. 65th District Representative The Honorable James Brulte, California State Senator, 31st District Representative The Honorable Jim Venable, County of Riverside, District III Supervisor The Honorable John Hunt, City of Banning Mayor The Honorable Brian DeForge, City of Beaumont Mayor The Honorable William G. Kleindeinst, City of Palm Springs Mayor The Honorable James K. Hann, City of Los Angeles Mayor The Press Enterprise Newspaper The Record Gazette Newspaper 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Banning, April 19, 2002 (1 of 5) THOUGHTS ABOUT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS ( or METROLINK EXTENSION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, FROM RIVERSIDE TO BANNING) Transportation is a universal and a prime need in anybody's lifetime. People need to go places, such as to work, to visit others, to entertain themselves, for tourism purposes, for health and shopping purposes, etc.. All available means of transportation are extremely diversified, depending on the distances to be covered and the time dedicated to reach their intended destination. For larger modes needed for public services, we have a large selection, some more effective than others, depending on the main requirements for it: economy, speed, safety, comfort, air pollution, etc. The solution to the transportation problem is then to find the most available, convenient, cheapest, fastest, safest, and least polluting mode, that is adaptable to the area that has the need. The Southern California, Inland Pass (Banning -Beaumont area) needs a Rapid Transit System to connect it to adjacent cities, airports, main shopping areas (like the 150 stores in Cabazon), and to L.A. and beyond. Perhaps that could be accomplished by the simple extension of the existing Metrolink service from Riverside up to calm .Springs/Indio area, besides the consideration of a more direct bus service, which will crowd the freeways even more, and increase the air pollution in this area with their fuel burning engines. Then, why this need?: for economic, time saving, and less polluting reasons, and for the benefit of all tax payers in the Inland Empire, regardless of race, religion, age, health, legal or illegal residency, political affiliation, personal solvency, etc. It is almost like an unrestricted Welfare need! It has been said that it will be difficult to fund it, as the initial cost seems to be high. My question is: compared to what?... Not everyone can afford to own an automobile, or if he does, he may not even want to drive his car in an already crowded freeway or highway, full of unexpected delays due to accidents, heavy traffic, bad weather, etc. The next question is: (2 of(i)7\' What would be the best transportation mode for the Inland Empire to have? We already have a good Federal Freeway (#10), but very crowded, especially during peak traffic times, with cars, buses, trucks, R.V's, big rigs and others. As far as I know, our fwy.#10 has reached its maximum capacity for available lanes, so to widen it , it would entail a lot of complicated and long term actions, such as more adjacent land to be annexed, as well as from where to obtain the financing for the expansion. My knowledge of rapid transportation, is based on my experience as an observer of rapid transit systems in different parts of the world where I had the good fortune to make use of it, as well as because of my business activities of more than 35 years of evaluating, buying, selling, and operating commercial aircraft in Latin America and on other parts of the world (I became a Airline Consultant arthe end of my career). To my knowledge, major cities of the world provide rapid transit transportation for their people. such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, Washinton D.C. (see enclosed map system), in the U.S.. Paris, London, Budapest, Vienna, Madrid, Rome, in Europe, and even in third world Latin American cities, like Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Caracas and Mexico City. In all those cities, they use mainly trunk lines with electric trains in densely populated areas, above or below the ground, coordinated with a large network of surface commuter services to adjacent cities and towns, each having their own short -haul commuter service through buses, micro -buses, trolleys, taxis, dial -a -ride services, etc. depending on their needs and availabilities. I am puzzled on why in this Inland area, the possibility of evaluating a system such as outlined above, is being dismissed by those who have the responsibility to provide rapid transit alternatives to our population. The Riverside Transit Agency has recently allocated $579,524 dollars to the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC $erkelev to study the feasibility of only a Bus Rapid Transit System for the Inland Empire. s Do we intent to reduce the freeway heavy traffic problem and pollution by adding large buses to the system? (please read the enclosed copies of Letters to the Editor and newspaper articles). Why has the Riverside Transit Agency ignored the alternative of Metrolink extension for the Inland Empire, concentrating on the Bus alternative only? .27, (3 of 5) In trying to reduce pollution, did they consider that Metrolink could also run electric trains? On the cost subject, did they evaluate the addition of another set of rail tracks on already existing system (where perhaps no additional railroad land is needed), that cold be cheaper, more practical and expedient, than adding a new lane in the already overcrowded freeway system, or creating a new freeway? Did they consider that the Metrolink extension will not be as prone to delays in service, as much as buses in the freeway could be, because of accidents, buses' breakdowns, etc. On the subject of cost of operation, did they ran a comparison between the two alternatives before dismissing one of them as too costly to the taxpayers? Did they make an evaluation on the extent of benefits, and cost, between the different alternatives, and for whom? Did they make a market analysis to estimate the number of passengers to be attracted by either system, and/or did they conduct a public survey to find out which system the public would prefer when offering different alternatives to them? Isn't that the Democratic way, to let the people decide what they want?... The ultimate analysis on the transportation cost to the public, pitting the automobile alternative versus the subsidised rapid transit system, can be easily calculated if you know how it can be done, and I am sure UC Berkeley can do'it well, and in an unbiased way, if'a comparison of alternatives is made. I will try to explain the economic difference between using my own car, versus the possible use of a Metrolink/local bus alternative, riding from Banning CA. where I live, to visit my grandchildren in Long Beach, CA.; that's a distance of approximately 100 miles by surface roads, taking approximately 2 hours to do it by car, in normal traffic and within speed limits. I will use the same cost analysis method that I learned when evaluating commercial airline travel, which is expressed in aircraft/mile, and seat -mile costs for the airlines (offered versus occupied). With this information, the airlines can determine their fares to be charged, and their breakeven capacities, as well as their possible profit margins. My Car -Trip cost Banning-L.Beach: The economic evaluation of this trip includes Direct Operating Cost (DOC), and Indirect Cost (IOC). 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (4 of 5) The DOC calculation: considers variables such as, initial cost of the car, its depreciation and residual value; gasoline consumption; insurance; license and maintenance. The IDC calculation considers other non constant costs, such as parking fees, possible traffic tickets, minor repair deductibles, etc. In the Airline business evaluations, we commonly used 100% of DOC, to calculate the total operating cost or TOC, of the trip to be evaluated. As car transportation is less complex than by airlines, we will take only S0% of DOC to calculate TOC. Now the car -trip cost evaluation: My car is a 1997 Buick Ultra, bought for at a price of $30,000. Current value approximately $15,000, with a residual value in two more years (when I intend to sell it) of approximately $ 9,000, which gives me a depreciation value of ($30,000-$15,000) - $9,000 = $6,000 divided by 5 yrs.= $1,200/yr.divided by 15,000 miles/yr.= $.08/mile, and for 100miles: = $ 8.00 (one way) Gasoline: at $1.70/Gallon, and 22miles/gallon consumption, = $ 7.73 (one way) Maintenance: Check ups and Oil changes every 2,000 miles, at an average cost of $24.00 each time : _ $1.20 (one way) Car Insurance: $1,020/yr. at 15,000 miles/yr.. Cost for 100 miles: = $ 6.80 License Fee: $148/yr., 15,000 miles/yr, and for 100 miles =$.99 Total DOC: $24.72/for 100 mile -trip IOC ( 80% of $24.72)= $19.778 per 100 mile -trip TOC= DOC+IOC (80% of DOC) for the 100 mile trip is then: $24.72+$19.78= $ 44.50 one way, to visit my grandchildren in L.Beach from Banning, CA. (100 mile trip), or $88.00 round trip, (driving my own car). That's a lot of money for a one time visit, and two hours drive!, but it is O.K. because I love my grandchildren, and 1 like to see them often... 1 2q (5 of 5) As I have no knowledge of the initial cost and depreciation of a railway system, nor the cost of running a bus or a Metrolink train, it would be difficult for me to make a cost comparison against my own car expense -trip. However, I can assume that with subsidies from Federal and State governments for the initial investment, plus with county and city taxes where the service is located, and based on experience from foreign countries, the estimated total fare expense for me to visit my grandchildren , assuming the Metrolink extension at least to where I live, could be approximately: Estimated Bus fare from my residence to Metrolink station in Beaumont/Banning area: $ 1.00 Metrolink Beaumont/Banning to L.A. Central station: $ 6.00 L.A.Central- L.Beach Metrolink: $ 5.00 Bus Metrolink L.Beach to grandchildren's home: $ 1.00 Total:. $ 13.00 one way Estimated time needed: residence-Metrolink station Beaumont/Banning: Metrolink-L.A. station (including four short 5 minutes stops in between to pick up and unload passengers at other destinations): L.A.station-L.Beach Metrolink stations: Bus L.Beach Metrolink-near grandchildren's home: or 3hrs. 49 minutes .50 hrs. 1.86 hrs 1.00 hrs. .45 hrs. Total Time: 3,81 hrs. CONCLUSION: Using my own car it -will cost me approximately $ 88.00 round trip, to visit my grandchildren in L.Beach from where I live, with a total driving time of about 4hrs. in normal traffic (I has taken me sometimes much as 3 1/2 hrs one way driving time, when traffic is at a snail pace, for whatever reason...) With a subsidised Metrolink/local bus system, it will cost me approximately only $13.00 one way, or $28 round trip, taking me 3hrs.49 minutes to get there (or 7 hrs. 38 min. round trip) but I would have travelled safer, and in a less stressful manner as I am not doing the driving, as well as reliable in a timely manner, as delays will be at a minimum, plus contributing to the reduction of air pollution by not using my car.... - That's why I would like to see the_Metrolink service extended from Riverside to Banning! �,t,,' C--6 C''1� — ( r O.Henry Tappata r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WHO WOULD BENEFIT? (DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS FROM 2000 CENSUS) A 6 wF.DN'FSDA7.Mil 15,100: CM° CENSUS • S' DRY FROM Al Snapshots of Inland Southern California information Iron the 2000 Census show differences In Nand area communities. Median age Households Home ownership Education Less than hign =tool Hops scnoof graduate Some co4.e9. 1♦ 84che&cis degree or nigher Where you lived in 1995 Same 'vane 3 D'oc'ent county ICAn 1f OIeferent stare Place of birth California Population 33,271,643 1990 29360A21 Percent grawvt ....13896 333 Meerage sae 287 i 165Mir6wiielc Under 18 99-7111111111111.11 65 and over IUD%mai ■ Renter !• Ownw 1 occupied ocacied 43.114 56.9► 6y 1RrastaR 9.8 46 •;crews ■ u.5. Dort born X194 13Jfw Income i 4r 5200.000 or more 3.6 j--- S 150A00 to 5199.999 3.1 S 10Q000 hp 5149999 10.4 r--" 373.004 to 599,999 ; 1196 SS0.00a to 574,999 1 79.1 535.000 to 1.49,999 15.1 _ 525.000 to 334.999 11.4 EMI __513.000 to 324,999 113 - 510.000 to S14.999 53 Less than $70.000: 8.1Mel Median 00. w166daa"W $47A93 Riverside County Poputanon...1445337 1990 1 170.4,3 %tent growth ....320% 33.1 average sere . .. . 298 11E1f1 ndereleak Under 18 43.214 IMMO 65 and over 23.114 ABM ■ Renter ■ Owner occupied =sped 31.196 6449% Banning ell geaumant Poputwon 23,562 *am. - 1910 20.57C 950 Ptna'ttsramt ..143% rseet growth 40.7 Me•rsge size . . . . 2.60 With ndwit ;ale Under 18 30.996 Manaalnai 65 and over 4L9A11. • Renter • 1]wu+ occuoied occupied 36.0% TLOK 46.7 1111••• I SOS 170 P ■ Foreign ■US. born ban 1941.0% refemcbr 19 C /.9 Q L1 = 11.1 Inn -' 193• 363 12,4 1.11.1 533 _ 1� �_ 19.7 14 a LS an brercelrow 146 4.7 ■ Foreign ■ U.S. born coon 014.3x�cea ES.h 107 $42,687 Soo. nor+....., ICorona _ if tta •• E•,' Moreno Vall 11334 i Population 7,139 Poouauor . . 124,966 5voula:rot . , , . .1 9,685 1993. a 647 1990 76.095 199; .. .17.544 Percent recent,.., 536'9 : Pecen:q•c.r.•s 30.3 I 44.4 It I Calimesa iwacie ure 2.89 leverage size kknn6laatelx : Wfh idti4lc ricer 18 ;miser it 24.844 f.E=1 arm o.er • 6i end cm• .416. ' 42.85 3••--.., 'tenter ■ Now- . a Fem. uc:s;a,er OCCUp,oc 0c uoiec 46: 54.Ok •)°"r"b91 • ay percentage 3036 3 1 0 3 30 f±1_1_, I' n at Ity mange MUIR . 2_1e . Averatiesle Wen vtaequ7iu: Uncle, i3 ISJ" 105 jr,'. ,v.t ‘I3.9h ■ Owner arcuated 81.0 133 29 0 111.2 f 1_ ,4; Si./ 87 ciertemape 230 `7 1 3 n ri By percentage • 4 11 ■ L S. ec••, 91St. trial 11.! .11.111.111 14 • 11.11011. :44 13• 7U 8 - Penn - occurred 32.544 SY Peceneage 17 i !_4 (,.1196 Percent a�.wtr 29.9 3.2? 4nerafle tan waa rd w.dmk :n der :5 0., 1..0 over j 1496 leOw-,r I r Renter • Ore ucc uric•: O<Gt.11:neC o!c 613-, 2S9, 11,' 4 57 inn, :in ■ . Doer Pcm 71,1, - _ 78.6,4 ay oreemagr 35.,, 2i 4 743 Fil 14.1 '19977106 1 174 r 3.; •. fot.n,. ■1:.5 ❑c:. I Inn., 2. 05 . 30.0► $59,615 S47,38i 1 1 >)e. l. D THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2004 B3 1 1 1 e the It Id June n. to 8 Blvd. e about is built ; a great Iity gets le doing • said. said the is even and and counter ess any er why money, the tax- inanced : impact ;ell the ags and of the parking 46- Metrolink to get more cars BY BRADLEY WEAVER THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE Crowded conditions on the Metrolink train system will. evaporate next month thanks to: the acquisition of 14 passenger cars, officials said Wednesday. Riverside County Transpor- tation Commission leaders said; the cars, each holding 147 seats; will be delivered this month and. go into operation in July. Most of the added cars are expected to appear in the Inland, area, where ridership to Orange County has jumped nearly 20 percent since last year. Riv- erside and San Bernardino. county passengers make up: nearly half of the roughly 35,000• riders daily who use the train system into Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Stephanie Wiggins, the trans- portation authority's rail, de- partment manager, said the expanded rail system addresses the boom in Metrolink pas- sengers. A plan is also in the works to, push the rail system into Perris by 2007. The Riverside County Trans- portation Authority also agreed Wednesday to earmark its share of funding, about $4.1 mil- lion, for Metrolink's financial operations during the 2004-05 fiscal year. The entire system's proposed budget is $275 million. 1 af. 1 1 1 1 Ilk ��.. — WI,LLIAM;;D.;NOVELLI„CHIEF EXECUTIVE:; OFFICER .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AsWe See It Ending Isolation A new study reports that more than half of all nondrivers age 65 and older stay at home on any given day. Qe of the main reasons is that ...- th-errInearrs'oftransRortation: are -limited. America is truly an,automobile society -+ More than 3.5 Sidewalks, centers million Americans `� = where people can 65 and older risk '' '`"� socialize, restau- becomin isolated -. g , { .v.44� ;.� . , rants, theaters, mu - simply because = = seums and libraries they don't drive. i. • `` � are also necessary. And the problem is 4 _ `` n AARP has made particularly acute. ` livable communi- in rural America,':. ties one of the pri- where -there•- are -1 orities on our 10 - fewer transporta= -_ - year social impact lion options than in cities and.: —agenda. We want to make sure suburbs, and where walking is _v that Americans are able to stay often difficult orunsafe.'..1- r. mobile and avoid isolation as The study, Aging Americans: they age. • Stranded Without Options, was 'AEA means they must have released last month by the adequate -transportation al-: Surface Transportation Policy ternatives:when driving is not Project, in collaboration with-feasible.'Cbmpetent drivers AARP.Itfinds that, asAmeri-,:t:•must be able to retain their cans grow older, our .existing, sdriving privileges to the max - transportation network wilLjn um extent possible. notmeet their _needs ;;; We also want to ensure that Clearly, federal, state and lo- Americans 50 -plus have ap- cal policymakers have to in- propriate and affordable hous- vest in and create more livable ing options that enable them communities. To be more liv- to age in place, in their com- able, communities must in- munities. clude the physical features Putting down the car keys and readily accessible services doesn't have to lead to life in that enable older residents to isolation. But we need to take remain independent as long as the steps to make our commu- possible. nities more livable. Better transportation is the :s= As the boomers —who grew No:BI•priority,;but it is not the up in cars —reach the point only one. Making communi- where they become less will - ties safe from crime is also im- ing or able to drive, the prob- portant. And it is important lem will only get worse. for older people —for all peo- We have the time and the ple, in fact —to live close to opportunity to make these basic services, such as food important changes in our and drug stores, medical serv- communities, but we must get ices and places of worship. started now. 30 / AARP BULLETIN !MAY 2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Article appeared in the Record Gazette edition of March 22, 2002 DOWN BY THE STATION - The new Amtrak passenger station on North Indian Avenue in Palm Springs could be use for Metrolink service form L.A. to that area with a'stop in the Pass. Record Gazette photo by Hal Lowe M4ih 2Z. Zao=, Commuter trains through the. Pass Area are a possibility By Hal Lowe been trying to promote the same concept Record Gazette that Tappata has. Henry Tappata of Banning is one of the Amtrak uses the local rail line to run a growing Pass people who would like to passenger line from LA. to Jacksonville see the area served by a cornmuter train Florida. The Sunset Limited, formerly utilizing the Union Pacific Railroad operated by the Southern Pacific tracks running through the area. Railroad, has been carrying passengers Tappata said that he saw the need for along this route since the 19.10's. In recent such a system which would connect the years, Amtrak has built a small station oft Pass with all the Southland when rela- North Indian Avenue, near I-10. to serve tines, living in the western part of Los Palm Springs passengers. Angeles, rook more than $ 1/2 hours, using in the days when steam engines pulled several public transit systems, to reach the trains through the Pass, there was i Riverside, where he had to pick them up. station here where people could travel Ile said that the development of such a into Los Angeles and also travel east system, radiating from the i_A. area to toward Phoenix. more of the outlying areas, could be The Metro Link rail systems from designed like the many major transit sys- Riverside and San Bernardino were orrigi- tems serving large cities in this country nally set up to attract those who work in as well as the ones serving cities through- the L.A. metro area and keep there eta of out the world. their cars on the freeways. It was expand There has been some talk of extending ed to weekends to attract shoppers and the Metro Link system, which now travels day visitors. from L.A. to Riverside and San Such a system, which would also ser: e Bernardino, through the Pass to as far as the Pass, could easily he expande.1 into Palm Springs. the Palm Springs area. There is a group, the Pass Area Such a line could attract shopper:: an Transportation Now Chapter, which has visitors there. Several yeas ago, a group of Palm Springs hotel operators and merchants discussed setting up a free shuttle bus scrlrice herveen the new railhead station on North Indian Avenue. In their discus- sions they noted that such cities as Chicago and New York have cornmuter rail service to and from areas farther from their central city areas than Palm Strings is from LA. They also note that the rail line is already in place. Tappata has been corresponding with gnvernmcnr representative regarding his efforts for rail cornmuter service in this area. Congresswoman Mary Bono, who rep- resents the Pass Area, as well as the Palm Springs area, gave words of encourage- rr,eat in a January letter to Tappata, when :,he wrote, "Panning and Palm Springs are nn the list of future service offer- ings Please know that my office is working wit h representatives fro:u Metrolink and Amtrak regarding expand- irg their service in the Coachella V;:Iley. 1 t c u Mt you that better access to mass transit is needed in the Banning area and m working to achieve that goal." 1 Banning, August 20, 2004 California State Senator Mr. Jim Brulte 10861 Foothill Blvd #325 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91739 Dear Senator Brulte: It was a pleasure seeing you again during the CPR session at UCRiverside campus. To refresh your memory, I met you sometime ago during one of your briefings at the San Gorgonio Pass Republican Women at the Sizzler restaurant in Banning. I also wrote the booklet "Reflexions from a U.S.Naturalized Citizen" (Letters to Lawmakers), which copy I have sent you in the past. The booklet that I am including now is self explanatory. I know it is not your direct responsibility to help us in this subject, but we have been ignored for a long time by those who have it, that is why we are appealing to you, as we have already to Mr. Jerry Lewis (first letter in the enclosed booklet). If you can help us in the San Gorgonio Pass area, by assisting now the city of Beaumont, who has recently applied to RCTCfor the construction of a Park and Ride station (release of $6 million from Measure A) the whole Pass will appreciate it, and especially Casino Morongo, who is most interested for the current AMTRAK Sunset Limited service to make a stop nearby. Thank you for listening. Very Truly Yours, -R- O.Henry Tappata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B6 THURSDAY, October 14, 2004 P INLAND EMPIRE Rival iays-assemblywoman ducked votes BY DAVID NERM THE PRESS-ENTERPRANN ELECTION 2004 miss a few days inthe state more than 1,000 cases m which capital because of personal and district voters were suspected PALM SPRINGS -Speaking from orange feet quacked loudly in family medical problems. - of registering more than once. behind a carefully, arranged support. Garcia said Andreas has had Andreas dismissed those flock of 334 yellow toy ducks on Wednesday's news confer- her own attendance problem at claims, citing the conclusion of Wednesday, challenger Mary ence was the latest attack in one.. volunteer boards and commis- the Riverside' County registrar An Ann dreas accused incum- bent opponent Bonnie Garcia of "ducking" hundreds of votes in the state Assembly that could have helped families in Garcia's 80th District. "In less than two years, Bon- nie Garcia failed to vote 334 times," Andreas said. "From schools to health care ' to the economy, Bonnie Garcia has been more worried about parti- san politics than about taking a stand on issues important to our families." Neajrby, an' Andreas cam- paign volunteer wearing a white duck suit with bright legislativeraces in the state. The contest pits Andreas, a Democrat and .former tribal leader with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, against Gar- cia, a first -term '- Republican from Cathedral City. Garcia responded: to An- dreas' critique of her voting record by ,asserting that she voted on all of the legislation she believed was important. "I chose not tovote on issues that are political in nature and where the author had .not :done their homework," she said She said she was forced to ofthe most hotly contested lions to which Andreas has of voters this week that the duplicated registrations were the result of honest mistakes and not intentional voter -fraud. But Garcia said the regis- trar's findings support her con- tention there is widespread po- tential for voter fraud. There are 2,054 suspect regis- trations, and in the 5 percent examined by the registrar, half were duplicates, she said. "These are people who have the potential to vote two or three times," Garcia said. "That doesn't mean that these people will exercise that, but the oppor- tunity should not be there." been appointed. "If she can't show up here in the district as a volunteer, how is she going to show up to work as an assemblywoman," Garcia said. The Garcia campaign also held a , news . conference Wednesday . to talk about the assemblywoman's allegations, of voter fraud.. . Last week, Garcia sent letters to the secretary -of state and officials in Riverside and Impe- rial counties requesting an in- vestigation into her campaign's claims that it has discovered Added cars help relieve crowded Metrolink. BY BRADLEY WEAVER THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE Crammed conditions on the. 'Metrolink train system have been alleviated thanks: to the addition of 14 new passenger cars and expanded service into Sim Bernardino County, offi- cials said Wednesday. 1 Riverside -.County Transpor- tation Commission said the cars, each holding 147 seats, went into circulation last week and initial feedback has been positive. Most of the added cars are on major lines that run throughout the Inland. area, where ridership has boomed, space has been tight and seats scarce. "It's been standing room only for some people but the added cars have made a big . differ- ence," said commission spokes- man John Standiford: Metrolink officials leased the cars from a Seattle rail; line and plans call for permanent cars to be added within a few years San Bernardino service has been expanded to include a train every 20 minutes during morning and afternoon com- mutes -_and every hour `during`:;: nonpeak times. Transportation - leaders also want to add a line between Riverside and Perris by 2008.' "We continue .to be limited only "by the amount of equip- ment we have," said. Riverside County Transportation_Comm mission's executive director Er- ic -Haley. - The ; expansion is good news to people such as Lori Newman, a -Riversideresident who uses the rails to commute to her job in Orange County- But like other Inland residents, - she's critical of the region's public transportation system and said . buses and trains' should` be better synchronized and run more frequently. Inland ridership on the trains has grown nearly 80 percent since 2000, according to experts. New information released this week shows average rider- ship on the Riverside line "has grown 17 percent over a year's time. The average number of Inland passengers using the Orange County line has jumped 7 percent since last year. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING , - and INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED. NEGATIVE DECLARATION A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING to consider the pro- Ied shown below: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. NO. 00503 with CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 06473 and TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29098, EA 37747, is an application sub- mitted by David Jeffers, Ran- cho California Zoning Area, Third Supervisorial District, and more generally located on Road - 40.28 Acres - 42 L A-2-10 Zone - SP N/A - Sc ule B. Pursuant to Ordin, No. 348, Riverside Co Land Use Ordinance, anc dinance No. 460, Rive: County Subdivision ( nonce, the Change of proposes a change of ; from Heavy Agnculture, Acre Minumum (A-2-10. One Family Dwelling, 1/2 i Minimum (R -A). Tentc Tract Map No.31291 prop( a Schedule B Subdivi Map, for 42 Residential Lc TIME OF HEARING: A.M. or as soon 'as poss thereafter. DATE OF HEARING: NOVFMRER %. 2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IA POLITIC : a meanies and unio s will fight ,propositions that could eliminate $1.2 billion. BY JIM MILLER SACRAMENIC SACRAMENTO—Gamhl;ng was the last thing Doug Aadland thought he had to worry about in the coming weeks. As vice president of Yeager •Skaiiska, Inc, a Riverside fire that is among the largest high- tvav builders in California, Aa- d spends his days seeking An unexpected collision nc ate an 1 Casinos has linl?e( the fate of n w roads, inter- changes and hundreds of ether transportation projects 11i i cs mpany could bid on with two ga.tnhl'inginitiatives nn the Nov, 2 ballot. Many companies, anions .11u others tvitb a stake in the tate's beleaguered transports - In program, soon will be open- ng their wallets to tight props and 70. "We shouldn't be involved in I'hnt being said, the state ceps taking iminey° away ," An1land said. On Aug. 5, the California Transportation Commission ended funding for almost aril iiew projects until December officials found that the has only $500 million of ? billion it needs for work ed in 2004--055. ]hen officials will the t1',`O €yin: gaming ,,,ta evaporate, compacts be ' z liegger tribes 4� ill "No one knows what's going to happen, (The measures' defeats) really are the only thing we're depending on at this point,'r JOSE R TAVAGUONE, A RtVERS1 DUI DER AND REAL ESTATE INVESTOR gaasoline ashes tax• load`and mass-tr_lnsit pr was supposed to :.provide a t en,;istent source caf money for t.°rasaslportation, brit i'rop. 42 has never taken effect rn 7kers suspender three years and used the rr ,ncv to balance the ibudget. lot of e aai(isrn Jim Earp exec - :rector ofthe r lliance for an organization that rep- ' heavy construction nil mhos 'ingcontractors we need op,,oppose 68 and. 70. And ixe 'red to tl}?11Cose e.f10)0 s0 we can gel: `;t illlil(331 back into fr€.rl 'pollution that is already c2 L RPitIE nwed to us," he said. I've been in this 'business a long time aid this is rile roost unusual and creative transpor- tation financin plan i've ever seen." One of the two measure's, Prop 68, is backed by card e Iabo and race tractits, It would .:e�- Li8lir" gaming tribes to agree e i.0 C rte 25 percent of their Ve : l s- style-, g bilpg would be al- lowed at \i us card clubs and rare tr aeks, Tile measure already has rlr;ra a well -funded from tribes v",'itl ras are coIl[" 'i"I inarhet snare, Prop, 70, go s is .°d Its Agun Ca1iente Band of C tndicns. mild lit 11 machine 1hnzt. on slot mac in return fa °`hcs paying the 8,8 par(!tal corporation ;por o inn ,liTir, i3',s said t to 'provide the bulk al th€f spenntr' about Sp0rte 0) irate' vleasure ,:It's riot 1ih rnone1 Ear Reach Jim liiiler at (916) 445-9973 or jiniiiar@pe.com ave a tot of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c Issue No. 12 — June 14, 2004 Commission Approves $178 Million Budget for Fiscal Year 2004/05 Riverside County's continued bullish residential and business growth will mean a larger budget for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Revenue from the Measure A half -cent sales tax program (the Commission's primary revenue source) is expected to grow by 17 percent in the next year. Yet another revenue growth area will come from the western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigatiorj Fee (TUMF) program, a transportation development fee that was instituted last year. The added revenue is critical because the upcoming year promises to be a busy one, as the Commission continues a number of projects and moves forward on several new initiatives. In terms of construction, RCTC will continue its work on HOV lanes on Route 60 in Moreno Valley and Route 74 between Lake Elsinore and Perris. Although the 60/91/215 project is the area's largest, it is not reflected in RCTC's budget because Caltrans is the lead construction agency. Bridge work on interchange project _._..._.._........__.._.._.._ __._._. ____..__.._........_......_..___...._ Project development work will also be a priority in moving along the study of a new corridor along Cajalco/Ramona and for improvements on Route 91 in Corona. Yet another planning effort will be the Major Investment Study that will be ", conducted jointly with the Orange County Transportation Authority. regarding intercounty transportation improvements between Riverside and Orange County and realignment of Route 79. As for ongoing commitments, a significant portion of Measure A revenues are returned back to cities and the County for local projects and street and road maintenance. In western Riverside County, the local turnback for street and road maintenance is 40 percent and it is 35 percent in the Coachella Valley. Measure A revenues are also used to pa for aratransit services for seniors and persons with disabilities, commuter assistance services ca o es the FreewayService Patrol 1 and Metrolink train service. } o� saw �Oeenio a 9 The vast majority of the Commission's budget is devoted to projects and services. In fact, Measure A limits expenditures on administrative salaries for the Measure to only one percent and the Commission has adopted a policy of keeping overall administrative expenses to less than' four percent of its budget. Metrolink Expecting More Passengers In addition to approving its own budget, the Riverside County Transportation Commission also gave its approval to Metrolink's Fiscal Year 2004/05 budget. Metrolink commuter train service is overseen by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, a joint powers authority comprised of five county transportation commissions including RCTC. In taking a look at every relevant financial and passenger indicator, Metrolink is a good deal for Riverside County. Overall train boardings at Riverside County Metrolink stations jumped by 78 percent over the last five years, and significant ridership jumps are planned for next year. Currently, Riverside County is served by three separate Metrolink lines and is home to five stations that are all owned and operated by RCTC. The average daily ridership on the three lines serving Riverside County exceeds 9,600. All five of Metrolink's member agencies contribute to the operation of the service. This year, RCTC will contribute $4.1 million for operations, which is a 2.4 percent increase over last year. One important improvement that riders can expect to see during the next year is the addition of 14 new cars that have been leased from a transportation agency in Seattle to alleviate overcrowding on a number of trains. Some of the cars will be deployed on rush hour trains on the Inland Empire/Orange County Line. 111014' �n verslde County ransportadon Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Banning Chamber of Commerce 123 E Ramsev Street P.O. Box 665 Banning, CA 92220-0665 ___ .. _ 1 _ _ _ _ Caltrans Honors Corona Station The North Main Corona Metrolink station has received a California Transportation Partnership Award from Caltrans. Final construction on the station was completed earlier this year and the station is already serving more than 550 passengers per day. The station is owned and operated by ROTC, but was made possible through the assistance of the Corona Redevelopment Agency, which provided the land for the facility. The station is an important component of Metrolink Train arriving at North Main Corona Station Corona's redevelopment activities in the area. The Jong -term goal for the station is to develop a multi -modal transportation center that will include more trains, more parking and additional transportation services. Upcoming Meetings and Information The Riverside County Transportation Commission will hold its next meeting on Wednesday, July 14 at the Riverside County Administrative Center, First Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside at 9:00 a.m. RCTC also maintains a speaker's bureau that makes presentations throughout the county on transportation issues. If you are interested in scheduling a presentation for your service club, community group or any other organization, please contact John Standiford at (909) 787-7141 or e-mail him directly at jstandiford@rctc.org. Riverside County Regional Complex • 4080 Lemon Steet, 3rd Floor • Riverside,California 92501 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, California 92502-2208 • (909) 787-7141 • Fax (909) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Commission Seeks TUMF Projects Western Riverside County's Transportation Uniforrr Mitigation Fee (TUMF) has. been in place for approximately a year and i generating enough revenu to fund new regional arteria projects. To advance this effort, the Commission i issuing a Call for Projects t local jurisdictions in western, Riverside County. All told the Commission expects tc1 release at least $7 million in funding for regional arterial improvements. The item will return to the Commission in September' when a vote will be taken o� project priorities and fundin allocations. The Commission - has already allocated som11 TUMF funding for prop^ work on Cajalco/Rams. , Route 79 and the Gree River Interchange at Rout 91. h407 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL January 12, 2005 Present Absent s 17/ O� D 0.- O D D D � 0 Fr 0 O County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral 'City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 .Skii--/\,\AA.A"-n-C7-)1\