Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 12, 2003 CommissionO 33161 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts 1 s` Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson 2nd Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe Records Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Art Welch / Bill Jenkins, City of Banning Placido L. Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory Schook / John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DiGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macnicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Greg Ruppert / Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Robert L. Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris G. Dana Hobart / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please camp/eta arm' JYY//f/L O 1 0t1l IIt //r L.O/L/ to LII 'Yen: . of LI IC VV///I//IJJ/V//. [I,?�Cp,(�O 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, February 12, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; and, 2) Approve the Planning Budget Adjustment to reflect the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Planning Revenue and Expenditures. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 2 6B. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PROJECTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Page 3 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Western Riverside County Areas. 6C. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Page 5 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the following budget adjustments: 1) $55,000 increase for Administrative Legal Services; 2) $197,851 increase for Administrative Election Fees; 3) $1,000,000 increase for STA Distributions; and, 4) $100,000 increase for Rail Station and Legal Fees. 6D. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 8 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending December 31, 2002. 6E. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ending December 31, 2002. 6F. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months of October, November, and December 2002. Page 12 Page 17 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 3 6G. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 19 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy position: Support if Amended — SCA 2 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as introduced 12/2/02; Support — ACA 7 (Dutra, D -Fremont) as introduced 1/14/03; Policy Position Support — ability of counties to enact or reenact local option transportation sales taxes by 55% majority vote; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 6H. SECTION 5311 AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS Page 24 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file information on Section 5311 and State Transit Assistance Funds. 61. FISCAL YEAR 2003 AMENDMENT TO COMMUTER RAIL'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN — FLEXING OF STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUNDS TO FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 FUNDS AND REVISION TO THE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE Page 28 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the flexing of State Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP Funds) to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 Program; 2) Include the North Main Corona Parking Structure in the Program of Projects for the Riverside — San Bernardino Urbanized Area as well as the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and, 3) Amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Short Range Transit Plan for the Commuter Rail Program to reflect the change in funding sources. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 4 6J. FISCAL YEAR 2002 TRANSIT OPERATORS' REPORT Page 30 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2002 Transit Operators' Report. 6K. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 37 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the attached membership roster for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC). 6L. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION AND SCOPE OF PROJECT CHANGE FOR THE CITY OF CORONA Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 40 1) Grant the City of Corona a change in the scope of project for their Chase Drive/EI Cerrito Bikeway project and an extension to June 30, 2003, to complete the project; and, 2) Grant the City of Corona an extension to June 30, 2003, to complete the Bus Stop Accessibility project. 6M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 44 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 5 6N. RESOLUTION NO. 03-019, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH POLICY RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING OPERATIONS AT COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS" Page 61 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 03-019, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Establish Policy Rules and Regulations Regarding Operations at Commuter Rail Stations". 60. HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM UPDATE Page 63 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Program Update as an information item. 6P. AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-063 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CCTV SECURITY SYSTEM AT THE RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA METROLINK STATIONS Page 65 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an increase to the contract contingency amount of Agreement No. 02-33-063 with Lynch Communication, Inc., by $30,000, from $40,100 to $70,100, to cover the costs for additional unforeseen work associated with the construction of the CCTV Security System at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations and connection to the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 6 6Q. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-035 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CCTV SECURITY SYSTEM AT THE EXISTING PEDLEY METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATION Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-035 to New Age Communications for the construction of a CCTV Security System at the existing Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, with a data link to the monitoring facilities at the existing Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for the amount of $199,800.98 plus a contingency amount of $40,199.02 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total contract amount of $240,000.00; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6R. AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-054 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSTRUCT RIGHT TURN LANES ON GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD TO STATE ROUTE 79 Page 71 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve entering into Shared Funding Agreement No. 03-31-054 with the County of Riverside for the construction of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road to SR 79 for $100,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 7 6S. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR SURVEY AND MATERIAL TESTING ON -CALL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Page 78 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide Survey and Material Testing On -Call Services in support of future Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of staff representatives from RCTC, County of Riverside, City of Riverside, City of Moreno Valley, City of Perris, and Caltrans, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFPs received; and, 3) Negotiate contracts with the top ranked consultant(s) and return to the Commission with contract recommendations. 6T. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 81 1) Approve entering into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate CMAQ funding for construction of the SR 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in the City of Moreno Valley; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Supplement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the SR 60 HOV lanes within the City of Moreno Valley, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 8 7. REPORT ON STATE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS AND IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive the oral report presented by D.J. Smith and Eric Haley. 8. CETAP INTERNAL CORRIDORS RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 84 Page 85 1) Receive and file the Summary of Comments received on the CETAP Draft EIS/EIRs; 2) Consider the proposal from the Federal Agencies to expeditiously work together towards agreement on a single alternative for both CETAP corridors; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Memorandum of Understanding which will outline the funding, schedule, data and analyses commitments made between the Federal Agencies, Caltrans, the County, and RCTC; 4) Approve an extended schedule and additional work on the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor; and, 5) Consider selection of the hybrid alternative as the Preferred Alternative for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor, pending final consensus from the Federal Agencies, with the consideration of a connection between State Route 79 and 1-215 in Tier 2 or as part of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor study. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 10. PRESENTATION - STATE ROUTE 91 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Overview Page 104 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the presentation by Caltrans on State Route 91 Improvement Projects as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 9 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. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM — Adjourn to RCTC Conference Room "A" Overview A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) 1) Names of Parties: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, Metrolink, RCTC, et al Arbitration No: 72Y 199 108 03 mdsi 2) Names of Parties: "No on 'A', No LA", San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. RCTC, County of Riverside, Caltrans, County Board of Supervisors, and Eric Haley B. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: (A list the properties will be listed in the final Commission agenda) C. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Negotiating Parties: Property Owner: Riverside County Transportation Commission Buyer: California Department of Transportation Assessor Parcel Numbers: 209-020-046, 209-020-026, 209-020-022, 209- 070-014, 206-151-029, 206-151-036, 209-060-022, 209-060-026, 206- 132-029, 206-132-030, 210-180-015, 210-180-018, 210-180-031, 210- 180-032, 210-180-133, 210-140-066 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 12, 2003 Page 10 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 12, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC / SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: V PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): inina'iltea Le 7'1. £,U 0(174 li ,: NAME; f 1111 ,ki\ki_'_\r1 I a S DATE: ,// r-3 ADDRESS: ,S_' , 6 Cc lEL. NO: S 7-s 7 J REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 'Ica_ V , L4 s TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: r Eil-cfL hi° ADDRESS: I/ 6 14N -v-4 c DATE: If (24 a3 TEL. NO:9° C -4u - C REPRESENTING: t—" tp�t-4 BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 ri(k- TEL. NO: 6131 col AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, January 8, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Roberts at 9:02 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 L. Byrd Juan DeLara Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Robin Lowe Anne Mayer Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Gregory S. Pettis Ron Roberts Gregory V. Schook Robert L. Schiffner John F. Tavaglione Jack Wamsley Jim Venable Art Welch Frank West Michael H. Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain G. Dana Hobart Greg Ruppert Jack van Haaster Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Chairman Roberts presented: 1) Corky Larson, CVAG Executive Director, with a plaque recognizing her service and coordination with the Riverside County Transportation Commission. She expressed her appreciation for the acknowledgement. 2) Commissioner John Tavaglione, Past Chairman of the Commission, with a plaque to commemorate his tenure as Chairman, expressing appreciation for his distinguished and devoted service and outstanding leadership. Commissioner Tavaglione expressed his honor serving as Chairman and praised the Commission members and staff for their dedication and hard work. B. Corky Larson, CVAG Executive Director, noted: 1) The high percentage of voter response in the Coachella Valley to extend Measure "A", particularly the Del Webb area; 2) The outstanding quality of information in the voter education material on Measure "A; and, 3) The farewell party on January 27th for John Pena and herself at CVAG. C. Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, recited Section 54950, "Declaration, Intent; Sovereignity" of the Ralph M. Brown Act. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 11, 2002 and December 11, 2002 M/S/C (Schook/Kleindienst) to approve the November 11, 2002 and December 11, 2002 minutes as submitted. Abstain: DeLara, Henderson, Welch 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-018, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE REALTY IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE WIDENING, REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENT Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 3 OF STATE ROUTE 74, BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 1640 FEET EAST OF WASSON CANYON ROAD, IN LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, TO 7TH STREET, IN PERRIS, CALIFORNIA (SEGMENT 2) " At this time Chairman Tavaglione called upon Legal Counsel to inform those present on the purpose of the public hearing. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, explained the nature and scope of public hearing including the findings that the Commission is being asked to make prior to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity. He stated that the cost for the properties is not the subject matter for this hearing. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the State Route 60 project and each of the findings. This presentation constitutes appropriate and adequate information for the Commission to affirm the required findings and approve the Resolution of Necessity subject to any comments from the public. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission, noted additional information for this item. She stated that notices were mailed to the affected property owners and proofs of mailing of the notices of the hearing are on file. Letters requesting to speak were received from Lillie M. Shaw, Charles and Joyce Mayfield, Elijah and Betty Lewis, John Kramer, Ray James Jr., Rudolph Lacayo, James and Marlene Frasier, and Webster and Dorothy Carter. Letters requesting extension or postponement were received from Edward Mora and Rosa Ivette Sanchez. At this time, Chairman Roberts opened the public hearing. 1) Charles and Joyce Mayfield, Highway 74 property owners, stated they would like to move ahead with a settlement and requested the status of their counteroffer and how approval of the resolution will affect negotiations. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, responded that settlement discussions will continue independent of the adoption of the resolution. 2) Edward Mora, 24991 Highway 74, expressed concern for the value offered for his property and the amount of land being acquired. 3) Andrew Boji, store owner on Highway 74, stated his belief that he has fully complied with the County's requests and there has been a Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 4 poor lack of communication from the County and their agents. He also expressed his concern that the value of his business is greater than what is being offered. 4) Lillie M. Shaw, 27020 Highway 74, expressed her concurrence with the project improvements but does not believe her property has been properly assessed and the fair market value offered. 5) Ray James, 25710 Taylor Road, also speaking on behalf of his son, Ray James Jr., 26000 Taylor Road, said that he believe the properties have been undervalued and need to be reassessed. 6) Rosa Ivette Sanchez, 23836 Highway 74, expressed her concern for the lack of notification of appraisal. She also believes the property and structures have been undervalued and the County has not followed the terms of the offer. She requested just compensation for her land and structure. 7) Dennis Blenn, Highway 74 property owner, expressed his extreme dissatisfaction with the notification process and stated his belief that the offer of compensation is far below fair market value and his property has been improperly evaluated. 8) Iente Bentley Johnson, Highway 74 property owner, indicated she was not notified for the hearing today as her property was not part of this resolution and requested the opportunity to speak at a future meeting. 9) Dave Ariss, representing Ned and Ted Triantos, Highway 74 property owners, stated his belief that the valuation for the temporary construction easement is far below just compensation. 10) Elijah Lewis, 22040 Fisher Street, requested that valuations be updated for all affected properties as he believes the present valuations are outdated and far below market value. There being no further requests to speak on this matter, Chairman Roberts declared the public hearing closed for this item. Commissioner Robin Lowe expressed her concern about the notification process and requested an investigation be done on the procedures by County agents. She also requested an explanation of the valuation process. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 5 Steve DeBaun responded that the appraisals are required to be current within the last six months and comps are determined by the most recent sales. If comps are not current, they are adjusted for fair market value. Commissioner Jack Wamsley also expressed his concern about the valuation process. Commissioner Percy Byrd expressed his concern that the notification and assessment processes are not being fairly completed. Commissioner Robert Schiffner requested confirmation that the adoption of the resolution would not affect the negotiations of the property owners. Steve DeBaun confirmed Commissioner Schiffner's statement. Commissioner Gregory Schook expressed his belief that the adoption of the resolution diminishes the ability of the affected property owners to negotiate. Commissioner Bob Buster requested Hideo Sugita address the issue raised regarding excessive amounts of land being acquired. Hideo Sugita explained that common engineering principles are utilized to determine the amount of land necessary for a project, noting special requirements for sloped areas. Commissioner Buster then asked Legal Counsel to confirm that severance damages are taken into account on an appraisal that leaves the part of the property not being acquired is adversely affected or unuseable and that the fair market value is for the current zoning of the property, not the perspective zoning. Steve DeBaun confirmed Commissioner Buster's statements. Janet Parks, Supervising Real Property Agent, explained that her department did not mail the notices. She explained to the Commissioners that the reason why some of the property owners who testified lack of notification or had problems receiving the notice in a timely manner was due to the fact that they were not listed as the property owners as their deeds have not yet been recorded. She added that Property Services makes every effort to properly evaluate the properties. With regards to the time allowed to notify property owners, Hideo Sugita stated that it was within the process. However, staff understood that Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 6 there were holidays that fell within the period and it was staff's decision to schedule this public hearing for the January Commission meeting. Eric Haley, with the consent of the Commission, requested that Janet Parks make contact with each of the speakers to address their concerns. In response to Commissioner Schook's inquiry on the impact of a 30 -day extension of the resolution, Hideo Sugita indicated that an extension would negatively impact the project timeline. M/S/C (Schiffner/Buster) to: 1) Approve the following findings: a. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. b. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. c. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. d. The portions of the real property to be acquired, as identified below, are "remnants" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, thereby giving the Commission separate statutory authority to acquire those portions by eminent domain. e. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 03-018, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests and Improvements Pertaining to the Realty in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS 349-342-002, 349-342-003, 349-342-001, 345-210-011, 345-200-009, 345-150-011, 345-070-019, 345-060-051, 345-050-017, 342-210-037, 342-210-014, 342-120-040, 342-200-025, 349-342-022, 345-210-008, 345-150-003, 345-150-002, 345-060-053, 345-060-052, 345-090-009, 342-210-010, 342-210-013, 342-040-041, 342-130-010, 349-341-002, 345-210-027, 345-150-024, 345-070-034, 345-060-054, 345-060-047, 342-210-004, 342-210-016, 342-120-016, 342-130-001, 342-130-005, 345-220-048, 345-210-028, 345-150-010, 345-070-035, 345-060-050, 345-050-018, 342-210-038, 342-210-015, 342-120-039, 342-200-060, 342-150-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 7 342-150-004, 342-140-006, 342-051-002, 342-051-006, 342-051-008, 342-061-002, 342-064-004, 342-072-001, 342-072-005, 342-072-007, 342-071-011, 326-250-009, 342-140-002, 342-140-007, 342-051-003, 342-052-003, 342-052-013, 342-061-003, 342-062-004, 342-071-004, 342-072-006, 342-072-008, 342-072-015, 326-250-010, 342-140-005, 342-100-026, 342-051-004, 342-052-004, 342-064-010, 342-061-004, 342-062-005, 342-072-019, 342-071-008, 342-072-009, 342-040-029, 326-250-034, 342-150-016, 342-051-001, 342-051-005, 342-052-005, 342-061-001, 342-061-005, 342-062-006, 342-072-020, 342-071-009, 342-071-010, 326-250-033, 326-240-062, 326-240-028, 326-240-029, 326-240-032, 326-240-033 and 326-240-051 (Project Parcel Nos. 13633-1, 13634-1, 13635-1, 13635-2, 13636-1, 13646-1, 13646-2, 13646-3, 13655-1, 13657-1, 13657-2, 13657-3, 13657-4, 13658-1, 13660-1, 13671-1, 13672-1, 13673-1, 13674-1, 13675- 1,13685-1,13686-1, 13688-1, 13688-2, 13693-1, 13694- 1, 13698-1, 13699-1, 13701-1, 13701-2, 13702-1, 13707- 1, 13708-1, 13715-1, 13715-2, 13740-1, 13750-1, 13750- 2, 13753-1, 13753-2, 13762-1, 13763-1, 13764-1,13764- 2, 13767-1, 13767-2, 13768-1, 13768-2, 13768-3, 13765- 1, 13765-2, 13773-1, 13773-2, 13774-1, 13781-1, 13781- 2, 13781-3, 13782-1,13784-1, 13784-2, 13785-1, 13786- 1, 13787-1, 13787-2, 13790-1, 13793-1, 13793-2, 13793- 3, 13794-1, 13794-2, 13796-1, 13796-2, 13808-1, 13814- 1, 13814-2, 13814-3, 13814-4, 13817-1, 13818-1, 13819- 1, 13828-1, 13829-1, 13842-1, 13842-2, 13843-1, 13844- 1, 13848-1, 13850-1, 13856-1, 13857-1, 13862-1, 13862- 2, 13864-1, 13864-2, 13865-1,13870-1, 13870-2, 13871- 1, 13871-2, 13872-1, 13872-2, 13873-1, 13873-2, 13873- 3, 13874-1, 13874-2, 13875-1, 13875-2, 13877-1, 13880- 1, 13881-1, 13883-1, 13885-1, 13885-2, 13885-3, 13888- 1, 13888-2, 13888-3, 13890-1, 13890-2, 13894-1, 13895- 1, 13899-1, 13900-1 and 13904-1), by Eminent Domain Is Necessary for the Widening, Realignment and Improvement of State Route 74, Between Approximately 1640 Feet East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Lake Elsinore, California, to 7th Street, in Perris, California (Segment 2)." Nay: Berg, Schook Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 8 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission, noted additional information for the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 7B, "Revised CETAP Budget"; • Agenda Item 8, "State Budget and STIP Impacts on Transportation"; • Agenda Item 9, "Federal Transportation Authorization Act Priority Project List". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Staff requested Agenda Item 7B, "Revised CETAP Budget", be pulled for the Consent Calendar for discussion. M/S/C (Pettis/M. Wilson) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending November 30, 2002. 7C. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7D. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-039, STATE ROUTE 60 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 1) Enter into Agreement No. 03-31-039, with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Traffic Enforcement Services during construction of HOV lanes on State Route 60 in Moreno Valley; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 9 7E. AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-050 (AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT NO. RO-9954), WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7TH STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS 1) Award Agreement No. 03-31-050 (Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. RO-9954), for SC Engineering for additional Survey Services to complete the PS&E for State Route 74 widening project between I- 15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, for an additional base amount of $248,200 and an additional contingency of $51,800, for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $300,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7F. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II PROJECT, FROM WASSON CANYON TO 7TH STREET 1) Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide construction management services for the State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC staff, County of Riverside staff, City of Lake Elsinore staff, City of Perris staff, and Caltrans staff, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFPs received; and after the evaluation process; and, 3) Negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant(s) and return to the Commission with a contract recommendation. 7G. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-040 WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR SHARED FUNDING OF STREAM CROSSING ALONG STATE ROUTE 74 1) Enter into Agreement No. 03-31-040 with Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) for shared funding of the construction of a RCB stream crossing along State Route 74 for an estimated amount of $150,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 10 7H. APPROVAL OF UTILITY AGREEMENTS FOR THE GREENWALD REALIGNMENT AND MEASURE "A" STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT PROJECT 1) Approve entering into Utility Agreement Nos. 03-31-041 with Southern California Edison (SCE), 03-31-042 with Verizon, and 03- 31-043 with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) for the Greenwald Realignment Project. RCTC costs are estimated as follows: a) SCE - $14,000 b) Verizon - $1,200 c) EVMWD - $6,000 2) Enter into Utility Agreement Nos. 03-31-44 with EVMWD, 03-31- 045 Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), 03-31-46 with the Gas Company, 03-31-047 with Verizon, 03-31-048 with SCE and 03-31-049 with Adelphia for the SR -74 Project. RCTC costs are estimated as follows: a) EVMWD - $827,000 b) EMWD — No cost to RCTC c) Gas Company — No cost to RCTC d) Verizon — $344,250 e) SCE - $524,000 f) Adelphia - $71,250 3) Enter into a Utility Agreement No. 03-31-051 with EVMWD, for Segment 1 of the SR 74 Project, to address administrative and final agency review changes to the existing SR -74, Segment 1, EVMWD Utility Agreement No. RO-2041, and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the Utility Agreements on behalf of the Commission. 71. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Approve the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs, as submitted. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 11 7J. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 03-14-051, AMENDMENT OF SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS CONTRACT FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-14-051, an extension of the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00-051 between RCTC and SANBAG for a two-year period in an amount not to exceed $ 147,000 for two years; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. 2002 AMENDMENTS TO THE BROWN ACT (OPEN MEETING LAWS) Receive and file the 2002 Amendments to the Brown Act. 8. STATE BUDGET AND STIP IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION Hideo Sugita updated the Commission on the projected impacts that the State Budget and the STIP will have on transportation, providing an assessment of the shortfall and the projects at risk. Eric Haley updated the Commission on the recent events involving the State Budget issue. He noted that the Northern California Counties are advocating four principles: (1) The Department of Finance, Department of Transportation, and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) do not take immediate action and retain project delivery staffing capacity; (2) Institute a 10 -cent emergency fuel tax increase over a 5 -year period to cover the anticipated 9 billion shortfall; (3) index the fuel tax; and, (4) Lower the threshold for voter approval of measure programs to 55%. Shortly, the CTC will request the Commission to submit a prioritization process and priority expenditure plan. Hideo Sugita reviewed the policy considerations facing the Commission in determining how to respond to the budget issue and prioritizing projects. Commissioner John Tavaglione advocated the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to work closely with the CTC and legislators and to prioritize projects. He stated his belief that the criteria for project prioritization should be those projects that have the greatest congestion relief benefit. Commissioner Buster concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione's recommendation. He also recommended staff provide the Commission with a comprehensive list of estimated residential and business growth and how it will impact transportation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 12 Commissioner Lowe concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione's recommendation and added that traffic congestion relief projects are a priority after Measure "A" projects. Eric Haley recommended that the Ad Hoc Committee be comprised of a 14 member board with geographic balance and include an ex -officio member from Caltrans. Chairman Roberts requested Commissioners to notify him or Naty Kopenhaver of their interest for appointment to the Ad Hoc Committee. M/S/C (Pettis/M. Wilson) to receive and file the State Budget and STIP Impacts on Transportation Report as information item. 9. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT PRIORITY PROJECT LIST Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, reviewed the TEA 21 Reauthorization Priority List, noting that the SR 79 Realignment Project in the San Jacinto area was inadvertently left off the list and should be added. Commissioner Dick Kelly, noting that there were few Coachella Valley projects, asked how agency input was obtained. Darren Kettle responded that CVAG was contacted and they submitted their list of project to staff, and informed him that CVAG will pursue the Bus Rapid Transit Project as a TEA 3 Demonstration Project without the assistance of the Commission. Commissioner Kelly expressed his belief that there was a miscommunication between staff and CVAG. M/S (Lowe/Buydos) to approve RCTC and Inland Empire Transportation Equity Act projects for the 21' Century (TEA 21) Reauthorization Priority Project List. Commissioner Kelly made a substitute motion to include the following projects on the list: (1) Bus Rapid Transit Project; (2) Gene Autry Trail Interchange; (3) Indian Avenue Interchange; (4) Jefferson Street Interchange; and, (5) Jefferson Street Project North of 1-10. Commissioner Tavaglione expressed the need to maintain a realistic and balanced list of projects that our congressional representatives can support and lobby for. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 13 M/S (Kelly/Pettis) to approve RCTC and Inland Empire Transportation Equity Act projects for the 21st Century (TEA 21) Reauthorization Priority Project List with the addition of the five CVAG projects. Ayes - 9, Abstain - 1, Nays 12 Commissioner Robin Lowe then submitted an amendment to the original motion to include the CVAG Bus Rapid Transit Project. M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to approve RCTC and Inland Empire Transportation Equity Act projects for the 21St Century (TEA 21) Reauthorization Priority Project List with the addition of the CVAG Bus Rapid Transit Project. Ayes - 18, Nays - 4 '10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 7B. REVISED CETAP BUDGET Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, reviewed the revised CETAP Budget, outlining the major factors resulting in the increased costs. Commissioner Lowe expressed her discontent with the continually increasing cost of the CETAP Budget and remiss in controlling costs. She recommended any further budget increase requests be brought before the Commission and Riverside County Board of Supervisors for approval before any work is done. Commissioner Tavaglione concurred with Commissioner Lowe's recommendation and noted that the Board of Supervisors has publicly stated that the elements of RCIP will be completed by July 1, 2003, as to avoid any further expenditures from any government agencies. He recommended the Commission be in concurrence with the Board of Supervisors. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Schook) to: 1) Approve an increase of $778,985 to the CETAP Budget which results in a total budget of $15,461,552; 2) Commit to reimburse the County of Riverside for any advancement of funds they make for this project; 3) Recommend any further budget increase requests be brought for approval prior to start; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 14 4) Be in concurrence with the Board of Supervisors that the RCIP process must be completed by July 1, 2003, as to avoid any further expenditures from any government agencies. 11. PRESENTATION - CETAP INTERNAL CORRIDORS John Kain, Transportation Consultant for the Building Industry Association (BIA), Southern California Riverside Chapter, on the Western Riverside County CETAP Internal Corridors, provided the Commission with a presentation on the Western Riverside County CETAP Internal Corridors by Urban Crossroads. The presentation highlighted the following: • CETAP Purpose • Existing Deficiencies and Future Needs • Ability of CETAP Route Alternatives to Provide Western Riverside County Freeway Relief • Concerns with the RCTC Staff Recommended Route Alternatives • Winchester Area Planned Improvements The presented analysis determined that for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Route, Alternative 1 b (Ramona/Cajalco Alignment) is the only CETAP east -west alternative which provides relief to existing freeways and for the Winchester to Temecula Route, Alternatives 5a and 5b are the only CETAP north -south alternatives which provide relief to the 1-15 Freeway. Commissioner Jack Wamsley asked why the Winchester to Temecula Alternative 7b is being considered in light of the large number of required grade separations. He also stated his support of Alternative 1. Cathy Bechtel responded that staff recommended Alternative 7b because it provides greater traffic relief. Hideo Sugita identified that the staff recommended alternatives represented a balance of community, environment and transportation, even though other alternatives provide higher transportation value. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley noted: • The sale of the SR 91 Toll Road has been completed and the Bi- County Committee with Orange County to discuss toll policy and new corridors is scheduled for the last week in January. • The initiation of the Bi-County Committee with San Diego County that will focus on Interstate 15 transit and highway issues. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2003 Page 15 • A CETAP Public Hearing will be held at the Perris Fairgrounds on January 9th. B. Chairman Roberts requested Commissioners interested in volunteering for the TEA 21 Reauthorization Ad Hoc Committee to contact Naty Kopenhaver or himself. Steve DeBaun made an announcement that Agenda Item 13B was pulled from the agenda. '13. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) Significant exposure to litigation to subdivision (b) Number of potential cases: 1 B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) Significant exposure to litigation to subdivision (b) Number of potential cases: 15 There were no announcements on the Closed Session items. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Revenue Projections BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; and, 2) Approve the Planning Budget Adjustment to reflect the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Planning Revenue and Expenditures. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the start of the fiscal year, staff made projections regarding the revenues received from Measure "A" and LTF Funds. Staff has been tracking these revenues on a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure "A" and LTF revenues are 8% higher than prior fiscal year. The local economy of the Inland Empire and especially Riverside County has continued to do better than the rest of the State of California and better than the national economy. This growth is attributable to the growth in population and housing boom. These two variables are the primary reason for the growth in sales tax revenue. Both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties have experienced double digit growth in the last calendar quarter. The local economists are not projecting a recession for Southern California; however, they continue to project a slowdown from the exorbitant growth of the past couple of years. They continue to project moderate growth in Riverside County. Based on this economic data, the events during the last three months and the monthly tracking data, staff is recommending that the Commission increase the current year revenue projections by 2.5%. This increase is moderate and sustainable. Now that the year-end LTF audit is complete, staff has revised the original projection to include the carry over that is now available to the transit agencies and local governments. Attached is the worksheet to show the revised breakdowns. Staff has projected a similar increase in revenue for LTF and the revised spreadsheet shows the changes. Upon approval of this item, staff will provide this updated information to the necessary transit and local governments. Attachment: Mid -Year Revenue Projections Item 6A 000001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOC AL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2002-2003 APPORTIONMENT Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est. Receipts TOTAL Auditor RCTC Administration RCTC Planning (3%) SCAG Planning BALANCE SB 821 (2%) BALANCE AVAILABLE Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Po pulation 1,240,834 340,576 27,160 1,608,570 Population % of Total 77.14% 21.17% 1.69% 100. 00% NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change 01/29/03 Budget FY 2002-2003 Orig. Proj . $0 $46.613,000 $46,613,000 $12,000 $600,000 $1,398,390 $101,000 $44,501,610 $890.032 $43,611,578 Budget FY 2002-2003 Apportionment $33,641,971 9,232,571 737.036 $43.611,578 Budget FY 2002-2003 Revised Proj . Increase $2,357,685 $47,778,325 $50,136,010 $12,000 $600,000 $1,504,080 $101,000 $47,918,930 $958,379 $46,960,551 $3,348,973 Budget FY 2002-2003 Re v. Appoti onment Increase $36,225,369. 9,941,549 793,633 $46960,551 $2,583,398 708,978 56,598 $3,348,973 000002 AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund Projection for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Western Riverside County Areas. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Local Transportation Fund projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the County. The Transportation Development Act legislation, that created LTF, requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and claimant allocation. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute, is charged with administration of the LTF funding process. The practice has therefore been for Commission staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas (as defined by TDA law) within the County. They are Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and Western Riverside. The revenues are divided based on their respective populations. The apportionment occurs after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the County, Commission and SCAG) and set -asides for planning activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%). Attached is the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of $49,689,000. The County has reviewed the estimate and concurs with it. The estimates are based on revenues to date projected to the end of the year and then inflated 4.0%. Attachment: Local Transportation Fund Projection for FY 2003-04 Item 6B 000003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2003-2004 APPORTIONMENT Budget FY 2003-2004 Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est. Receipts TOTAL Auditor RCTC Administration RCTC Planning (3%) SCAG Planning BALANCE SB 821 (2%) BALANCE AVAILABLE Population Western 1,270,036 Coachella Valley 346,797 Palo Verde Valley 27,508 1,644,341 Population % of Total NOTES: Estimate fo r Planning Purposes, subject to change 1/29/2003 77.24% 21.09% 1.67% 100. 00% $0 $49,689,458 $49,689,458 $12,000 $600,000 $1,490,684 $101,000 $47,485,774 $949,715 $46,536,059 Budget FY 2003-2004 Apporti onment $35,944,452 $9,814,455 $777,152 $46,536,059 000004 AGENDA ITEM 6C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Budget Adjustments BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the following budget adjustments: 1) $55,000 increase for Administrative Legal Services; 2) $197,851 increase for Administrative Election Fees; 3) $1,000,000 increase for STA Distributions; and, 4) $100,000 increase for Rail Station and Legal Fees. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Adjustment 1 — Administrative Legal Services The Commission has experienced an increase in legal services due to the NO on LA lawsuit and several administrative agreements. To accommodate these increases, Staff is requesting an increase in the legal services budget. The amount requested is $55,000 which will be funded from current resources and unreserved fund balance. Adjustment 2 — Administrative Election Fees When staff developed its budget last year, staff appropriated $175,000 for election fees for Measure "A". The amount budgeted was an estimate based on fees paid for the initial Measure "A'. The election fees for the original Measure "A" in 1988 was $150,000. Staff has received the invoice from the Registrar of Voters and the total cost was $372,851. The increase reflects the population growth in Riverside County since 1988 as the cost for the ballot measure is due cost for printing and mail out to registered voters in Riverside County, the length of the ballot measure Item 6C 0,010 O as the Commission determined to include the full Expenditure Plan to inform voters on how funds for the new Measure "A" will be appropriated, translation cost, and other charges by the Registrar Voters. The breakdown of services and cost are as follows: Sample Ballot Printing $245,723.00 Postage _ _ 35,721.00 Translation _ 1,593.60 Publication 389.70 Polling Place Costs 65,368.00 Labor/Support Services Cost 24,054.42 TOTAL $372,850.60 Unlike the other budget adjustments under this item, the Election Fees item did not go before the Budget and Implementation Committee as staff received the invoice after the Committee meeting. There are sufficient funds under the Commission's Unreserved Fund Balance and staff proposes Commission approval of the Election Fees budget adjustment. Adjustment 3 — STA Distributions Last fiscal year, Rail was approved a STA allocation for La Sierra Station Parking Expansion. The amount was claimed this fiscal year and was not included in this year's budget as it was expected to be paid last year. Since it was not paid last year, the funds were reserved for Rail and those reserved funds will be used as the resource for this expenditure. The amount requested is $1,000,000 which will be funded by reserved fund balance. Adjustment 4 - Rail Station & Legal Expenses On November 13, 2002, the Commission approved and amendment in the Short Range Transit Plan for $100,000 from LTF funds for Rail Station and Legal Expenses. This budget adjustment adjusts the expenditure budget to allow Rail to expend these funds. The amount requested is an increase in the expenditure budget for Rail Station and Legal Fees for $100,000 with' LTF funds used as the resource. 000006 Item 6C Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2002-03 Amount: $1,352,851 Source of Funds: Measure "A", STA, LTF Funds, Unreserved Fund Balance Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: S-12-65101 $55,000 Increase 241-62-86102 $1,000,000 Increase 103-25-65101 $40,000 Increase 103-25-73312 $60,000 Increase S-13-65527 $197,851 Increase Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/17/03 Item 6C 000007 AGENDA ITEM 6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending December 31, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 2002. Attachment: Monthly Report — December 2002 000003 Item 6D RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAIL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd . (2042) (3000) StJ81 TAL ROUTE ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (RO2041 9954,9966, (R02142) (RO2141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUiTOTAL 1'2OUTE 74: n .. ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003) Realignment study & Right turn lanes (RO9961) St BTOTAL F2OUTE 79 ROUTE 86 PRO JECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) SUTiTAL R 7LJTE * ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction (RO9101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (RO3008) Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) Sndwall Landsca ping (809933,9946,2059. 3601) StJ8TOTAL ROUTE 91: ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL TAL ilO UTE 111 COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION CONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE $7,700,000 $5,338,641 iddrOMW $69,847,655 $29,514,368 % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION 12/31/02 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 69.3 % 42.3% 3fi8qffw 42.3 % $2,894,497 $2,793,935 $20,253,000 $33,860,000 $19,500,000 $33,760,000 260, $11,902,100 $10,374,324 $2,954,000 $1,274,430 $2,954,000 $1,062,025 $1,603,450 $1,603,450 17 733,980 :1 • $1.5 O03 ' 74S $16,946,856 $15,530,856 96.5% 96.3% 99 .7 % 87 .2% 100.0 % 83.3% 100. 0% 91. 6% 5,530,856.°.. n Page 1 of 3 $512,027 12 vO 27 $4,594,080 94;G80 $2,978,860 1 $15,505,482 2}9 $25,126 Project Complete Project Complete $7,215 $0 $91,820 $10,339 1.08,374;: $909,867 S6` $18,060,000 $31,013,510 448::07.1.5 $9,524,187 $2,109,519 1 $338,799 $852,213 $0 1 $14,945,485 $.4,945 485 86.1% 52 .5 % 32.6% 92 .6% 91 .9% 91 .8 % 71 .4 % 31 .9% 53.1% $0.;20/5 96.2% RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOC ATION CONTR ACTURAL COM MITMENTS TO DATE COMMITTED AGAINST AUTH . ALLOCATION 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL t 2i5 INTERCHANGE IM PROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement (02-31-081)) SUBTO'TAL.BECHTEL' PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R 09936) USTOTAL; R RAM: PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 2127,2138,2139 SUt TOT 4L. PARK 14,41I COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R0 2029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,20.26,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $13,900,329 $13,900,329 100. 0% $967,009 $8,338,585 , tom.:. 3 6Bi4A BC C4MMUT, "tt $+Waggital $6,726,504 $5,878,173 $6,726,504 } :' $587$,173 $440,000 $400,000 $2,027,483 '$2:ti�^7 ,433 $17,218,070 $16,745,518 87.4% 87.4 %. 90.9% 97.3% EXPENDITURE FOR EXPENDITURES MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -D ATE AGAINST 12/31/02 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE $130,397 $102,718 $3,233,992 $5,704,897 $5,104,897 $312,519 $313+514::: $797,197 $0 $16,317,079 M i � .•a,,....z..... . .� . f - .:. �+ � :.i .. .;,. -.. .. aid?` :} Page 2 of 3 97.1 % 000(h . RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS & 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 12/31/02 ADVANCES BALANCE COM MITMENT APPROVED COM MIT . CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $665,282 $0 41 .6 % SU191'QTAL, cM4YoN:LA IW C AN f ', $1.60b0pd <: $$ $1,8(10,000 $665.282 SO i... . : 41 .6% CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,871,168 $0 55.1% Storm drainage structure T TA C1-` V 3F odikci A X5,212 623:: 3 $$ 232;.6123 $2,$11,16& fl i.:,�Z 55 1 CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,167,102 $0 60.3% CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $798,291 $0 60.3% CITY OF TEM ECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $3,070,230 $0 60.3% CITY OF NO RCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,289,241 $0 60.3% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Lo cal streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $763,581 $0 50 .9% CITY OF HEM ET Local streets & roads improvements $730,000 $730,000 $0 $0 0 .0% `. .: 2.. . i'ALS _ „ , '1 k"— . 1$, t(it '" $s 6 14 $4'. 52 4% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. St atus as of: 12/31/02 Page 3 of 3 00001' AGENDA ITEM 6E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ending December 31, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first six months of the fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues and expenditures incurred in the first six months of the year. Administration expenditures are in line as budgeted. The Commission has experienced significant increase in Legal Services as the Commission is defending itself in the "No on 'A', No LA" lawsuit. Staff will be submitting a budget adjustment to increase the budget in this category. The Salaries and Benefits category is under budget due to the vacancies created by the departure of the Public Information Officer. With the return of the P10, this category will incur those costs during the rest of the year. Other Administrative expenditures are on target for the year. Debt Service is paid in December and June. Staff expects to incur all Debt Service expenditures as budgeted. Intergovernmental expenditures are incurred early in the year and, as such, staff expects the expenditures to remain within the budget. Expenditures in the Program/Projects are below budget, however, these expenditures are related to progress on projects and staff expects that these funds will be spent as projects are completed. The exception is the STA program. Distributions were made for balances on reserve from prior years. This resulted in the expenditures being over budget. Staff is submitting a budget adjustment to accommodate this increase. The funds to be used to cover this increase are prior year funds from the reserved fund balance. Item 6E 000012 The revenues are consistent with expectations and reflect the mid year revenue change in projections. Staff is tracking Sales Tax revenue on a monthly basis and the Sales Tax revenues are 8% higher than the same time last year. Due to a change in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements, governments are required to enter a receivable entry at the end of the year for taxes that will be received in the next fiscal year that were collected in the prior fiscal year. As a result of this estimate, the Budget to Actual numbers show less than 50% collection of Sales Tax revenue. Federal, State and Local Government revenues are on a reimbursement basis and funds will be received upon completion of the work. Other revenues and interest are consistent with expectation set forth in the budget. Listed below is the capital related projects and their status: Highway Engineering/Right-of-Way State Route 60 - Incorporation of additional agency design criteria. State Route 74 - Completion of Phase II was delayed due to resolution of environmental and permitting issues. State Route 79 - Decision on proceeding with construction of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road was made and design is proceeding. State Route 91 - HOV project from Mary Street to 7th Street - completion of pre -award audit of the design consultant delayed the start of preliminary engineering. State Route 111 - Design activities for the Palm Desert projects were delayed due to drainage redesign requirements and completion of permit processing. Highway Construction • State Route 60 - Scope increase and additional right-of-way requirements have delayed construction start now forecasted for July 1, 2003. State Route 74 - Finalizing of environmental issues and permitting delayed the start of construction work on Segment I which is now in progress. State Route 79 - Right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road awaiting completion of design. State Route 111 - The Monroe to Rubidoux project in the City of Indio is complete and receipt of final invoices for incurred expenditures are pending. Rail Engineering/Right-of-Way North Main Corona Station Parking Structure - Delay in pre -award audit qualification of design consultant. • La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase II - Awaiting property acquisition to 0 0 0 013be finalized and City Permits to be issued. Item 6E Rail Construction La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Phase 11 — Construction is forecasted for April 2003. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachments: Quarterly Financial Statements for Period Ending December 31, 2002 Item 6E 0000.14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 2ND QUARTER FOR PERIOD ENDING 12/31/02 DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, state & local govemment Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenses Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway ROW Rail engineering Rail construction Rail ROW Local street & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming Total programs/projects Intergovern distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Total debt service Total expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent Cost of issuance Total financing sources/uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Fund balance July 1, 2002 Fund balance December 31, 2002 f/uceNpreprinUmdquertedieNdec 2002 BUDGET ACTUAL REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT UTILIZATION $ 101,048,500 $ 48,999,940 $ 52,048,560 48% 31,232,000 4,598,581 26,633,419 15% 6,554,900 3,023,074 3,531,826 46% 3,965,000 1,997,279 1,967,721 50% 142,800,400 58,618,875 84,181,525 41% 1,214,000 496,451 717,549 41% 45,000 57,579 (12,579) 128% 1,457,000 794,519 662,481 55% 328,000 178,011 149,989 54% 829,300 409,190 420,110 49% 3,873,300 1,935,750 1,937,550 50% 1,314,200 531,875 782,325 40% 568,000 237,466 330,534 42% 1,485,600 266,547 1,219,053 18% 2,317,100 607,031 1,710,069 26% 4,343,515 1,487,545 2,855,970 34% 15,921,000 722,401 15,198,599 5% 14,760,000 6,032,819 8,727,181 41% 2,643,798 279,185 2,364,613 11% 17,727,200 8,632,715 9,094,485 49% 6,453,000 11,627 6,441,374 0% 34,446,000 19,145,812 15,300,188 56% 7,957,900 4,377,860 3,580,040 55% 2,843,000 530,533 2,312,467 19% 1,113,000 428,133 684,867 38% 2,074,000 544,306 1,529,694 26% 85,700 14,952 70,748 17% 728,700 231,535 497,165 32% 4,335,500 2,206,561 2,128,939 51% 2,907,000 3,990,052 (1,083,052) 137% 3,677,000 1,959,117 1,717,883 53% 44,100 6,581 37,519 15% 127,745,313 52,244,653 75,500,660 41% 728,000 594,316 133,684 82% 412,000 264,716 147,284 64% 24,888,000 64,418 24,823,582 0% 10,663,000 5,262,174 5,400,826 49% 35,551,000 5,326,592 30,224,408 15% 168,309,613 60,366,026 107,943,587 36% 55,454,600 32,245,414 23,209,186 58% 55,454,600 32,245,414 23,209,186 58% 0% 0% 0% 0% (25,509,213) (1,747,152) (27,256,364) 93% 108,238,377 164,666,412 56,428,035 152% $ 82,729,164 $ 162,919,261 $ 80,190,097 197% 000015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY ACTUAL BY FUND 2ND QUARTER F OR PERI OD ENDING 12/31/02 DESC RIPTION PALO ST ATE WESTERN GENERAL FSP/ WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT CV AG COUNTY DEBT COMBINED FUND SAFE COUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONST RUCTION SE RVICE TOTAL Revenu es Sales tax $ 6,009,517 $ - $ 31,524,809 $ 390,985 $ 11,074,629 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ 48,999,940 Federal, state & local govemment 583,582 479,565 3,535,434 - - - 4,598,581 Other revenues 214,617 1,683 1,912,366 - 227,898 666,509 - - 3,023,074 Interest 3,419 16,117 472,133 46 1,598 12,805 1,025,545 465,616 1,997,279 Total revenues 6,811,136 497,365 37,444,743 391,031 11,304,125 679,314 1,025,545 465,616 58,618,875 Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 468,215 28,236 - - 496,451 General legal services 54,125 3,455 - - 57,579 Pro fessional services 770,201 24,318 - - 794,519 Office lease & utilities 167,330 10,681 - - 178,011 General administrative expenses 384,626 24,564 - - - _ 409,190 To tal administration 1,844,497 91,253 - - - - 1,935,750 Progra ms/pro je cts Salaries & bene fits 341,205 49,688 138,974 2 ,008 - - 531,875 General legal services 53,572 2,198 180,001 1,696 - - 237,466 Professional services 119,363 11,988 135,133 - 63 - 266,547 Gene ral protects - 599,049 7,982 - - - 607,031 Highway engineering - 1,484,532 - 3,013 - - 1,487,545 Highway constructio n - 722,401 - - 722,401 Highway ROW 6,032,819 - - 6,032,819 Ra il engineering - 279,185 - - - 279,185 Rail constru ction - 8,632,715 - - - - 8,632,715 Rail ROW 11,627 - • - 11,627 Lo ca l street & roads 14,295,623 443,724 4,406,465 19,145,812 Regional arterial • - 4,377.860 4,377,860 Special studies 391. 981 • 138,553 - - - 530,533 FSP towing - 428. 133 - - 428,133 Commuter assista nce - - 544,306 - - - - 544,306 Property management 14,952 - - - - - 14,952 Motorist assistance - 231,535 - - 231,535 Rall operations & maintenance 2,206,561 - - _ 2,206,561 STA distributions - - - 3,990 .052 - 3,990,052 Specia lized transit - - 465,117 1,494,000 - - - - 1,959,117 Planning & programming serv ices 6,581 _ - - - 6,581 Total programs/projects 3,134,214 723,542 33,660,034 443,724 10,293,024 3,990,114 - 52,244,653 Intergovem distribution 594,316 - - - - _ - 594,316 Capital outlay 249,131 15,902 (317) - - - - 264,716 Debt service Principal - - - 64,418 64,418 Interest - 75,092 - 5,187,082 5,262,174 To tal debt service 75,092 5,251,500 5,326,592 Total expenditures 5,822,158 830,697 33,734,809 443,724 10,293,024 3,990,114 - - 5,251,500 60,366,026 Other financing sources/u ses Operating transfer In - 240,600 4,396,142 27 - - 27,608,645 32,245,414 Operating transfer out 588,300 240,600 13,123,978 3,948,560 - 27 14,343,950 32,245,414 Bo nd proceeds _ - - _ Paymen t to e sc row agent Cost of issuance Total financing sources/uses 588,300 8,727,836 3,948,533 27 14,343,950 (27,608,645) Excess (deficiency) of revenues end other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses 400,678 (333,3321 (5,017,902) (52,693) (2,937,431) (3,310,800) (27) (13,318,405) 22,822,761 (1,747,152) Fund balance July 1, 2002 6,480,013 2,953,519 60,383,032 99,449 6,070,965 4,560,529 27 45 .938,904 38,179,974 164,666,412 Fund balance December 31, 2002 $ 6,880,691 $ 2,620,187 $ 55,365,130 $ 46,756 $ 3,133,534 $ 1,249,729 $ - $ 32620.499 $ 61,002,735 $ 162,919,261 0000i6 AGENDA ITEM 6F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months of October, November, and December 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the months of October, November and December 2002, under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $391,255. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of December 31, 2002 Item 6F 000017 SINGLE SI GNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2002 C ONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2002 Volt Edg e Inland Mailing Services PSI Inc. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Repairs, r eplacem ents and Maintenance at Downtown St atio n Commuter Assistance Ride Guides Duplicates of Videos F ootage pursuant to May 2002 Agreement ORIGINAL REMAINING C ONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT $ 500,000 .00 16,145.00 16,142 .00 15,000 .00 0.00 25,000.00 1,335.54 3 .00 15,000 .00 23,664.46 Ge Fe ty 8 Associate* CO tlttarif betl4e f `OCTC Tor project, ?'n . £;tia g UP ROW and .A .W.c or Ea$t ora de separation proj ects.: '11)2/03 lean Fuefs impiernedntlon consulting cry cr_t Lf;men"'�u dl 108,745.00 40,155.05 68,589.95 6.3 501; 8.625.00 AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING THRO UG H June 30, 2003 Donna Polmounter Prepared by t d reareseuti7aw co n M ichele Cisneros Reviewed by vember&; $ 391,255.00 $ 40,155 .05 $ 351,099.95 f:\use rs\pre print\dp\sinsig03 00001.3 AGENDA ITEM 6G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy position: Support if Amended — SCA 2 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) as introduced 12/2/02; Support — ACA 7 (Dutra, D -Fremont) as introduced 1/14/03; Policy Position Support — ability of counties to enact or reenact local option transportation sales taxes by 55% majority vote; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The 2003-04 State Legislative Session began December 2, 2002 under the cloud of California's most catastrophic budget crisis in State history. While the Governor has submitted a 2003-04 fiscal year budget to the State Legislature that identifies a $34.6 billion budget deficit, Elizabeth Hill, the State's "Independent" Legislative Analyst announced on January 15, 2003 that the LAO's analysis identifies a deficit estimated at $26+ billion. Regardless of the final budget deficit number, addressing California's financial crisis will be priority number one for the State Legislature and will consume a tremendous amount of the Legislature's energy through 2003. The State budget crisis not withstanding, the first day to introduce bills for the 2003-04 Legislative session was December 2, 2002 with a handful of bills being introduced in the first six weeks of the session. Two bills with relevance to transportation are listed below with staff recommended positions. Item 6G 000019 SCA 2 (Torlakson, D -Antioch) - This measure is a Senate Constitutional Amendment that would place before California voters the ability to adopt a local option sales tax for transportation projects with a minimum of 25% of the revenues for smart -growth planning and development with a simple majority (50% +1) vote. Staff recommends: SUPPORT IF AMENDED. The staff analysis is attached. ACA 7 (Dutra, D -Fremont) - This measure is an Assembly Constitutional Amendment that would place before California voters the ability to adopt local option sales tax for transportation with a super -majority vote of 55% voter approval: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. Federal Update Congress has not yet acted to finalize the federal 2002-03 fiscal year budget and specifically have not yet finished work on the 2003 Transportation Appropriations Act. The Congress approved its sixth continuing resolution (CR) to keep the federal government running through January 31St, 2003 and has done so at the 2002 budget levels. Of particular interest to RCTC and SANBAG is the House version of the Transportation appropriations bill that includes project funding earmarks totaling $12.7 million in San Bernardino County and $7.5 million in Riverside County. Congressional leadership is now contemplating a plan that would call for the Senate to pass an omnibus package that would include the remaining 11 appropriations bill, including transportation that would then be "conferenced" with a House package before the end of January. The Administration's proposal for the reauthorization of TEA 21 is expected to be unveiled in late January/early February. The Administration has given little to no indication of any new programs or initiatives that might be included in their proposal. On the House side, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R -Alaska) has officially endorse the concept of a two -cent per gallon per year for five years (a total of $.10 per gallon increase) gas tax increase that would fund the country's growing transportation needs. Attachments: 1) ACA 7 - Bill Analysis 2) SCA 2 - Bill Analysis 000020 Item 6G Date of Analysis: January 15, 2003 Bill Number/Author: SCA 2 (Tom Torlakson, D -Antioch) As Introduced December 2, 2002 Subject: Senate Constitutional Amendment to set a simple majority vote requirement for local transportation sales tax measures. Status: Introduced December 2, 2002 Summary: The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax, such as transportation sales tax measures like Measure A or I by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax. SCA 2 authorizes a local government agency or a regional transportation agency, with the approval of a 50% + 1 simple majority of its voters voting on the measure, to impose a special tax, that it is otherwise authorized to impose, if the tax is imposed exclusively to fund transportation projects and services and smart growth planning. As a Senate Constitutional Amendment this bill must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters of the State of California. Staff Comments: SCA 2 is a constitutional amendment that if approved by the legislature and California voters would reduce the super majority 2/3 -vote requirement for approval of transportation sales taxes to a simple majority. The November 2002 elections were an indicator of just how difficult it is to attain the 2/3`d super -majority vote requirement. Riverside County was the only county of five to pass a transportation sales tax measure under the 2/3`d voter requirement with a yes vote of 69.07%. The transportation sales tax measures in the counties of Fresno (53.7%), Madera (50.7%), Merced (61.31%), and Solano (59.8%) all failed to meet the 2/3rd voter requirement. There is growing concern amongst southern California transportation industry experts that a super majority vote is likely unattainable and for that reason a lower voter threshold may be necessary to have any hope of passage of future transportation sales tax measures such as Measure I in San Bernardino County. 000024 SCA 2 also requires local sales tax measures approved under this constitutional provision would be required to set -aside 25% of the revenues for "smart -growth" planning and development. The requirement that 25% of revenues be used for something other than transportation programs, limits local control and specifically the ability to fund transportation projects deemed most necessary by a county transportation commission and a county's voters. Staff recommends support for SCA 2 be conditioned upon an amendment to remove the 25% smart growth funding requirement. Finally, SCA 2 as introduced is only applicable to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies as defined. County Transportation Commissions, such as SANBAG, are currently not included as authorized agencies under SCA 2. Staff understands that this was a technical oversight and that the author intends to include CTCs in the future. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT IF AMENDED Proposed Amendments • Voter approval threshold amended to 55% • Eliminate 25% of revenues to Smart Growth Planning requirement • Include County Transportation Commissions as authorized agencies for such measures. 000022 Date of Analysis: January 15, 2003 Bill Number/Author: ACA 7 (John Dutra, D -Fremont) As Introduced January 14, 2003 Subject: Assembly Constitutional Amendment to set a 55% super - majority vote requirement for local transportation sales tax measures. Status: Introduced January 14, 2003 Summary: The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax, such as transportation sales tax measures like Measure A or 1 by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax. ACA 7 authorizes a local government agency or a regional transportation agency, with the approval of a 55% super -majority' of voters voting on the measure, to impose a special tax, that it is otherwise authorized to impose, if the tax is imposed exclusively to fund transportation projects and services. As an Assembly Constitutional Amendment this bill must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters of the State of California. Staff Comments: ACA 7 is a constitutional amendment that if approved by the legislature and California voters would reduce the super majority 2/3 -vote requirement for approval of transportation sales taxes to a simple majority. The November 2002 elections were an indicator of just how difficult it is to attain the 2/3rd super -majority vote requirement. Riverside County was the only county of five to pass a transportation sales tax measure under the 2/3rd voter requirement with a yes vote of 69.07%. The transportation sales tax measures in the counties of Fresno (53.7%), Madera (50.7%), Merced (61.31%), and Solano (59.8%) all failed to meet the 2/3rd voter requirement. There is growing concern amongst southern California transportation industry experts that a super majority vote is likely unattainable and for that reason a lower voter threshold may be necessary to have any hope of passage of future transportation sales tax measures such as Measure I in San Bernardino County. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT 000023 AGENDA ITEM 6H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Section 5311 and State Transit Assistance Funds PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file information on Section 5311 and State Transit Assistance Funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 5311 Funding In December 2002, the Commission was notified by the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that the Fiscal Year 2003 apportionment for Section 5311 funds was projected to be lower than originally anticipated. Section 5311 funds are federal dollars available for services in rural areas. The original projection, made in June 2002, was $538,126; the revised projection is $278,119 (representing a $260,007 decrease in funds). The following table provides a summary breakdown of Section 5311 funds, the percentage split provided to the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency, together with the funding impact for both agencies: Caltran's Original Projection - Approved 6/12/02 by Commission Action County - 100% RTA - 61.7% SunLine - 38.3% Federal Funds Available - FY 03 $538, 126 $332,024 $206,102 Carry Over $296,635 $183,024 $113,611 Total: i $834,761 $515,048 $319,713 Caltran's Revised Projection County - 100% RTA - 61.7% SunLine - 38.3% Federal Funds Available - FY 03 $278,119 $171,599 $106,520 Carry Over $296,635 $183,024 $113,611 Total: $ 574,754 $ 354,623 $220,131 Overall Net Decrease Total: $ 260,007 Item 6H $160,425 $99,582 000024 Both RTA and SunLine have been notified of the decrease in funding. At this time neither agency has indicated that replacement funding (such as Local Transportation Funds) are required to continue their anticipated level of operating. State Transit Assistance Funds In January 2002, the Commission was notified by the Controller of the State of California that State Transit Assistance Funds (STA) for FY 03 was projected to be $2,906,565 ($2,663,987 discretionary pot and $242,578 for specific operators). In November 2002, the Commission was notified that the funds projected had changed and the new amount would be $2,666,036 ($2,297,867 discretionary pot and $368,169 for specific operators). Attachment 1 provides detail on the revised projected STA funds for FY 03 for both Section 99313 funds (discretionary funds) and Section 99314 funds (operator specific). Attachment 2 provides FY 02 carry over STA balances together with FY 03 projected funding based on the three apportionment areas. If projected revenues are received, and all funds allocated are claimed, western Riverside county bus operators will have a deficit of $73,190 at year end. It should be noted that revenue from interest may cover the potential deficit as the total interest received during FY 02 was $427,208 (Western Riverside's portion was $265,860). Given the State's budget crises together with the potential STA deficit in western Riverside County, staff is recommending that the flow of STA funds be closely monitored. Should funds spiral downward; staff will provide an up date to the Commission and seek direction on whether to decrease funding allocations. Attachment: STA Fiscal Year 2003 Summary - Revised 000025 Item 6H Riverside County Transportation Commission Attachment 1 State Transit Funds - FY 03 99313 Funds 99314 Funds Ref. Total Original Notification (January, 2002) $2,663,987 $242,578 1 $2,906,565 Revised Notification (November, 2002) $2,297,867 $368,169 2 $2,666,036 Difference: $366,120 Decrease $125,591 Increase $240,529 Agency Reference 1 Reference 2 Banning $3,341 $2,550 Beaumont $1,424 $1,109 Corona $3,958 $3,501 Riverside $3,469 $3,095 Riverside Transit $147,592 $139,940 RCTC - Commuter Rail -- $110,554 SunLine Transit $81,414 $106,779 Palo Verde Valley $1,380 $641 TOTAL: $242,578 $368,169 Impact on Individual Agencies $791 decrease $315 decrease $457 decrease $374 decrease $7,652 decrease $110,554 increase $25,365 increase $739 decrease 99313 Funds Available Western Riverside Coachella Valley Ref. Palo Verde Valley $2,297,867 $1,772,575 $486,458 3 $38,834 Revised Projection - November, 2002 $1,418,060 Bus operators (80%) $1,772,575 x .80% $354,515 Rail operator (20%) $1,772,575 x.20% SUMMARY - REVISED STA FUND PROJECTION Western Riverside ' Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley PUC 99313 Funds $1,772,575 $486,458 $38,834 PUC 99314 Funds $260,749 $106,779 $641 Total: $2,033,324 $593,237_ $39,475 Bus - 99313 funds $1,418,060 Bus - 99314 funds $150,195 Total: $1,568,255 Rail - 99313 funds $354,515 Rail - 99314 funds $110,554 Total: $465,069 Reference 3 Population Information Based on Area Western Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Department of Finance Estimates (Retrieved 12/31/01) Population Population Percentage 1,240,834 77.14% 340,576 21.17% 27,160 1.69% 1/29/2003 STA FY 03 Summary 0 0 0 0) 6 Revised Projections Attachment 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission State Transit Funds - FY 03 STA FY 02 Ending Balances (by Apportionment Area) Western Riverside Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total � $4,560,529 Bus Rail $721,966 $284,807 $1,722,685' $1,831,071 STA FY 03 Apportionment (Revised November, 2002) Western Riverside Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Bus _ Rail Total $1,568,255` $465,069 $593,237 $39,475 $2,666,036 TOTAL STA FUNDS AVAILABLE (Ending balance FY 02 and projected allocations FY 03) Western Bus $1,722,685 $1,568,255 Riverside Rail $1,831,071 $465,069 Coachella Valley $721,966 $593,237 Palo Verde Valley $284,807 $39,475 $3,290,940 $2,296,140 $1,315,2.03 $324,282 LESS ALLOCATIONS RTA - FY 98, 99 & 00 RTA - FY 02 Banning - FY 02 Corona - FY 02 Beaumont - FY 03 Riv. Spec. Svs. - FY 03 RTA - FY 03 Commuter Rail - FY 02 (1) Commuter Rail - FY 03 Commuter Rail - FY 03 (2) Commuter Rail - FY 03 (3) SunLine - FY 03 Palo Verde - FY 03 Western Riverside Bus $540,068 $1,050,000 $12,494 $568 $9,000 $95,000 $1,657,000 Total Allocations: [ $3,364,130 Rail $1,000,000 $339,858 $302,100 $253,000 $1,894,958 Projected Balance of Funds -$73,1901 $401,182 Coachella Valley $651,000 $651,000 Palo Verde Valley $98,200 $98,200 $664,203 $226,082 (1) Commuter Rail reduced its STA claim from $1.8 million to $1 million for the San Jacinto Branch Line. Approved by Commission Action 11/13/02. (2) Commuter Rail received an additional allocation of $302,100 on 11/13/02 for the completion of FTA's Alternative Analysis for the San Jacinto Branch Line. (3) Commuter Rail received an additional allocation of $253,000 on 12/11/02 for real property services/right of way info for San Jacinto Branch Line. 7 000027 1/29/2003 STA FY 03 Summary Revised Projections AGENDA ITEM 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003 Amendment to Commuter Rail's Short Range Transit Plan — Flexing of State Transportation Improvement Funds to Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Funds and Revision to the Program of Projects for the North Main Corona Parking Structure PLANS AND PROGRAM COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the flexing of State Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP Funds) to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 Program; 2) Include the North Main Corona Parking Structure in the Program of Projects for the Riverside — San Bernardino Urbanized Area as well as the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and, 3) Amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Short Range Transit Plan for the Commuter Rail Program to reflect the change in funding sources. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commuter Rail Program is requesting a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Amendment to reflect a change in funding sources from State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP - ITIP Funds) to the FTA's Section 5307 Program. Originally, the North Main Corona Parking Structure was approved for $11,000,000 in STIP — ITIP funding. Caltrans recently requested that the first phase of this funding ($500,000) be transferred to the FTA's Section 5307 Program. If approved, the $500,000 will be comprised of $443,000 in FTA Funds with the remaining $57,000 funded by the State. The funding will be used for the design, engineering and construction of a 1,000 space parking structure at the Commuter Rail's North Main Corona Station. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2003 Program of Projects Item 61 000023 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2002-03 URBANIZED AREA: BUS APPORTIONMENT: RAIL APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS: CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: TRANSFER FUNDS - BUS (CMAQ) TRANSFER FUNDS -RAIL: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO $6,178,364 $4,767,890 $3,189,643 $8,315,721 385,000 $443,000 $9,753,007 $13,526,611 RECIP(ENTS: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CITY OF CORONA CITY OF RIVERSIDE RCTC - COMMUTER RAIL SUBAREA APPORTIONMENT $4,385,000 $902,000 $581,000 $4,682,000 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: 1) CORONA - PURCHASE FOUR REPLACEMENT DIAL -A -RIDE VEHICLES - RIV 32145 2) CORONA - PURCHASE THREE EXPANSION VEHICLES FIXED ROUTE - RIV 010511 3) CORONA - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE - RIV 020604 4) RIVERSIDE - PURCHASE 8 INTERMEDIATE SIZED SERVICE BUSES FOR DAR (REPLACEMENT) - RIV 32166 5) RIVERSIDE - PURCHASE TWO DIAL -A -RIDE VEHICLES (EXPANSION) - RIV 020605 6) RTA - PURCHASE OFFICE EQUIPMENT - RIV 32221 7) RTA - PURCHASE OF MAINTENANCE SPARE COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT - RIV 32236 8) RTA - PURCHASE OF BUS STOP AMENITIES AND SUPPLIES - RIV 32237 9) RTA - PURCHASE 10 DIAL -A -RIDE VEHICLES (EXPANSION) - RIV 32666 10) RTA - DEBT FINANCING FOR 57 TRANSIT COACHES PURCHASED IN 2000 - RIV 000605 11) RTA- IMPROVEMENTS AT RIVERSIDE AND HEMET FACILITIES - RIV 990722 12) RTA - PURCHASE OF 10 SUPPORT VEHICLES (EXPANSION) - RIV 990724 13) RTA - PURCHASE OF 10 30 -FOOT BUSES (EXPANSION) - RIV 020601 14) RTA - PURCHASE 5 SUPPORT VEHICLES (REPLACEMENT) - RIV 020602 15) RTA - CNG FUELING STATION AT RIV. FACILITY CMAQ - FLEX FUNDS - RIV 000101 16) RCTC - REHABILITATION AND RENOVATION OF TRACK IMPROVEMENTS (RCTC's PORTION - SCRRA PROJECT) - RIV 010514 17) RCTC'S ROLLING STOCK RESERVE - RIV 010214 18) RCTC - North Main Corona Parking Structure (STIP - ITIP) FLEX FUNDS TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE: BUS: RAIL: TL: 6/24/02 Revised: 1/27/03 TOTAL AMOUNT FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $600,000 $498,000 C SCAG $451,000 $374,000 C SCAG $30,000 $30,000 C SCAG $560,000 $465,000 C SCAG $140,000 $116,000 C SCAG $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG $200,000 $160,000 C SCAG $400,000 $320,000 C SCAG $2,140,000 $1,712,000 C SCAG $500,000 $400,000 C SCAG $220,000 $176,000 C SCAG $3,100,000 $992,000 C SCAG $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG $450,000 $385,000 C SCAG $995,000 $995,000 C SCAG $3,244,000 $3,244,000 C SCAG $500,000 $443,000 C SCAG 513,830,000 510,550,000 53,885,007 58,844,611 000029 AGENDA ITEM 6J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2002 Transit Operators' Report PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2002 Transit Operators' Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under Public Utility Code Section 99244, the Commission must annually identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the cost of transit operations. Part of that process includes the review of ridership data from the public operators. The attached report represents county -wide public transportation ridership, operating and financial information for FY 02 for the eight public operators. Attachment 1 provides data and performance statistics for the public operators for both fixed route and ADA/paratransit services. A total of 13,240,711 passenger trips were provided during FY 02 (12,621,111 for fixed route services and 619,600 for ADA/paratransit services). Operating cost per revenue hour for fixed route services (excludes the cost of commuter rail) ranged from a low of $19.39 (Palo Verde Valley Transit) to a high of $88.20 (SunLine Transit Agency). The Southern California Regional Rail Authority is currently in the process of finalizing FY 02 financial statements and as a result, is reluctant to provide operating costs for Commuter Rail prior to finalization of any audit adjustments. Operating cost per revenue hour for ADA/Paratransit services ranged from a low of $36.70 (City of Corona) to a high of $53.27 (SunLine Transit Agency). Attachment 2 provides a ridership comparison between FY 01 and FY 02. Overall, ridership on fixed route increased for the majority of transit operators. However, during FY 02, SunLine experienced a ridership decrease of 24,322 (3,742,500 passengers during FY 01 compared to 3,718,178 passengers during FY 02). Item 6J 0000, 0 The decline in ridership may be attributable to a fare increase which was implemented in March, 2002. An additional factor may be a result of passenger counting procedures. SunLine recently hired a consultant to investigate why ridership is decreasing. Ridership on ADA/Paratransit increased for most of the operators, however, ridership showed a decrease for the following operators: 1) City of Corona (74,582 trips provided during FY 01 compared to 65,887 during FY 02 — a decrease of 8,695); and 2) Riverside Transit Agency (225,583 trips provided during FY 01 compared to 224,280 during FY 02 — a decrease of 1,303). Attachments: 1) Transit Operator Ridership Report - Annual Actuals 2) Ridership Comparisons 00003 . Item 6J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT Attachment 1 FY 02 FIXED ROUTE - ANNUAL ACTUALS Data Elements - System Wide Total City of Banning Transit City at Beaumont Transit City of Corona Transit Commuter Rall - Riverside Line Commuter Rall - IEOC Line Commuter Rail - 91 Line Pal o Verde V alley Transit Riverside Transit Agency SunLi ne Transit Agency Total - All Providers Unlunlced Passenger Trips 235,5.39 61,857 43,356 1,161 ,455 732,110 41,940 5,234 5,521,412 3,718,178 12,521,1'11 Passenger Miles - -- - 42,689,140 24,575,155 1,363,815 - 37,313 ,067 24,995,824 130,937,001 Total Ac tual V ehicles Rev enue Hours 10,720 6,311 12,185 - 0 - 2,428 339,798 146,853 518,305 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Mile s 153,695 85,847 89,467 185,130 180,794 26,066 - 5,431,394 2,261,201 8,413,594 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 158,615 - 185,695 - - - 30.064 5,994,903 2,345,381 8,714,659 Collisions 0 -- 2 -- -- - - 60 1 63 Total Revenue Vehicle System Fa ilure s 37 -- 19 -- -- -- 773 185 1,014 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 18 -- 2 - - -- -- 730 392 1.142 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 93,952 - -- -- -I - -- 336,044 160,859 590,8 .55 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 73,371 - - -- --i -- - 310,050 153,643 537,064 Total Operating Ex penses 5655,933 5262,804 $439,184 Not Available Not Available 547,071 $23,698,203 512,952,933 538,074,125 Total Passenger Fare Revenues 598,115 $22,578 $29,425 55,569,016 53,471,770 $150,117 $13,360 $4,578,5,2.5 $2,410,913 $16,744,198 Net Ope rating Expenses (Subsidies} 5557,817 _ 5260,220 5409,759 Not Available Nol Availabl e $33,711 516,7.17,3 .03 $10,542,020 530,520.841 Performance Sta tistics - System Wide _ Operating Cost Per Revenue How g51.. 19 544,51 526.04 5 ; 0._ 9 509.74 555 .20 Farebox Recovery Ratio 14. 96% 7 .98% 6.70% 28.35 % 21 .01 % 18.61% ' 1. ,-,, .:� stibsldy per Pass enger 52. 37 54.21 $9 .45 56.44 $2.83 $2.6.1 ':� .i;:Yy'y,1j-` Subsidy per Passenger Mile -- - -- -- $0.50 50.42 ;22u"sue'' ::. Subsidy per Revenue Hour $52.04 $4123 $33 .63 513 .89 $55.08 $71.78 , --,-- .. .5,i:,..- Subsidy per Revenue Mile 53. 63 53.03 $4.58 - 53,45 54,66 -%*4.• . , 2�, ,, • • Pa ssengers per Revenue Hou r 21.97 9.80 156 2.16 19.49 25 .32 - ' -4�.'•>" f'' Pa ssengers perRe ve nueM iles 9 Reve nue Miles Between Collisions 1.53 113,207 0.72 -- 0.48 94,525 -'i -- 1 .22 90,52.3 t.e 4 2,261,201 'r Y:/! ki?- '. -- - 5e Trips On -T ime 7596. - -- -- 92 ,35+0 95.51 % .. +; �� - .:-_ Complaints per 1,000 Passengers 0.00008 0. 00000 0.00005 0.00000 0 .00011 0.00011 To tal Mile s Between Roadcalls 4. 287 - 4,709 - -- -, --e S5 _'� _L_ 000032 1/21/200312:16 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT FY02 ADA/PARATRANSIT -ANNUAL ACTUALS Data Elements - System Wide T otal City of Banning Transit City of Beaumont Transit City of Corona Transit Uty ,7t Riverside Specialized Transit Palo Verde Valley Transit Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Total - All Providers Unlinke d Passenger Trips 9,435 29,847 65,887 156,306 22,103 224,280 111,742 619,600 Passenger Miles - -- 303,664 630,989 - 2,249,528 2,154,466 5,338,647 Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours 1,985 6,946 15,072 37,954 5,937 107,695 45,289 220,879 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 32,041 79,114 232,812 630,471 - 1,828,068 799,456 3,601,962 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 34,360 -- 260,999 612,633 44,436 1,828,068 895,508 3,676,004 Collisions 0 - 2 4 - 21 1 28 Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures 1 - 17 32 - 100 50 200 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 0 -- 11 4 - 140 173 328 Tota l Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 8,820 - 70,718 159,387 - 225,3611 91,021 555,307 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 8,631 - 67,433 159,264 - 219,366 86,077 540,771 To tal Operating Expenses 378,657 $303,190 $553,203 $1,519,326 $243,600 34,570,625 $2,412,394 $9,680,995 Total Passenger Fare Revenues $5,752 $29,940 $79,202 $115,969 $24,576 $163,797 $199,878 $619,114 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $72,905 $273,250 $474,001 $1,403,357 $219,024 $4,406,828 $2,212,516 $9,061,881 Performance Statistics - System Wide 05$116W).41=1 Y ' ..� `. -hIMMT'IM' .. „ '.,.- isA'tirei ?,. Operating Cost Pe r Revenue Hour $39.61 $43.65 $36.70 $40 .03 $41 .03 $42,44 $53 .27 W' .c-;-= i, Fare box Recovery Ratio 7.31% 9.87% 14.32% 7 .63% 10.09% 3.58% 8.29% ;,L't -r Subsidy per Passen ger $7.73 $9 .16 $7 .19 $8.98 $9.91 $19.65 $19.80 4 : Subsidy per Passenger Mile - - $1.56 32.22 $1.96 $1.03 i: .�;;;,- Subsidy per Revenue Hour $36.71 $39.34 $31,45 $36.98 $36.89 $40 .92 $48.85 . ';," ,i Subsidy per Revenue Mile $2. 28 $3.45 $2.04 $2.23 - $2.41 $2.77 ts! r 4 „i Pa ssengers per Revenue Hour 4.75 4.30 4 .37 4.12 3.72 2 .08 2.47 no; „ '1 • "A.h Passengers per Revenue Miles 0.29 0.38 0 .28 0 .25 - 0.12 0 .14 k,i`4, ' l;. Revenue Miles Between Collisions - -- 110,444 157,618 -- 87,051 799,456 1 _. % Trips On -Time 98.0% - 95.4 % 99 .92 % - -- 94 .57% Complaints per 1,000 Passengers Total M lles Between Roadcalls 0.00000 29,971 0.00000 - 0.00017 13,695 0.00003 0.00000 19,702 -- 0 .00062 - 0 .00155 - _ _ ... .. .A . ;on;, 000033 1/21/200312:15 PM Attachment 2 FIXED ROUTE (Public Bus): Comparison of FY 01 and FY 02 7,000,000 6,000,000 - 5,000,000 co c. H c 4,000,000 - m N co a m 3,000,000 - Y •C 2,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 231,611 235,539 Banning 54,417 61,857 Beaumont 6,520,223 6,621,412 3,742,500 3,718,178 Transit Operators RTA Sunline o FY01 ■ FY02 000034 PARATRANSIT: Comparis on - FY 01 and FY 02 250,000 inked Passenger Trips 200,000 - 150,000 100,000 50,000 - 8,707 0 • 35 Corona Riverside Palo Verde RTA Banning Beaumont Transit Operators SunLine ElFY01 ®FY02 2 Ot)ui)35 COM MUTER RAIL: Comparison of FY01 and FY 02 1,400,000 Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 - 200,000 - 0 1,161,128 1,161,485 Riverside 701,111 732,110 Rail Lines IEOC D FY01 ■ FY02 000033 AGENDA ITEM 6K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the attached membership roster for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission made categorical memberships for one, two and three-year terms to the CAC/SSTAC. As the Commission may recall, the CAC/SSTAC was restructured to meet the requirements of the State. At this time, reappointment of five members needs to be made as the term for Sherry Thibodeaux, Andrea Puga, and Mary Venerable expired in 2002 and the term for Jim Collins and Cindy Scheirer are up in January 2003. Staff contacted the members whose terms have and/or about to expire, and all have indicated that they would like to have their appointments reconfirmed. Section 99238 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that categorical membership of the CAC/SSTAC consist of the following: 1) One representative of potential transit users who is 60 years of age or older; 2) One representative of 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 local social service providers for persons of limited means; and, 00003 e, 3 p� Item 6K 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. John Salley, Executive Director of Inland Aids, has indicated interest to be a member of the Committee. Mr. Salley has a Bachelors' Degree in Nursing and has over 20 years experience in the transportation arena. Staff proposes appointment of Mr. Salley to the Committee for a one-year term. The current appointments and reappointments meet the above requirements. However, the Commission may appoint up to six additional members, if they so desire. Attachment: CAC/SSTAC Membership Roster 000033 Item 6K CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCI AL SERVICES TR ANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name/Area Represe nted Cat eg orical Membership Term Date Nominat ed By i Qualificatio ns T eleph one Jim Collins Indio P otential transit user who is 60 years of age or older 2 Expires 1/05 Commissi oner Roy Wilson Pre vious CAC/SSTAC member 760-342-9595 Peter Benavidez Riverside Potential transit user who is disabled 2 Expires 1/05 Pre vious CAC/SSTAC member Previous CAC/SSTAC member 909-341-6336 Judy Nieburger Moreno Valley Social service pro vider for s eni or citizens/disabled 3 E xpir es 1/04 Commissioner Tom Mullen Past RCTC and Metrolink member 909-242-1777 Fortunato Penilla Riverside County Social ser vice provider for disabled 3 Expires 1/04 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Previous CAC/SSTAC member John Salley County -wide Social service transportation provider for disabled 1 Expires 1 /04 Learned of opening through Commission staff Provides transportation to disabled population Sherry Thibodeaux Riverside Social service provider for persons of limited means 1 Expires 1 /04 p Learned of opening through attendance of CAC meetings Interested in transit issues. Works for the Community Access Center. Hosts support groups for women with disabilities and domestic violence cases. 909-274-0358 Cindy Scheirer Pedley Co mmunity member 2 Expires 1/05 Commissioner John Tavaglione Involved in community issues and has attended Transportation Now meetings 909-685-3388 Andrea Puga Corona Community member 1 Expires 1/04 Commissioner John Hunt Past member of RCTC, RTA and Metrolink 909-737-0273 Chris Millen Banning Social serv ice transportation provider for the disabled/ limited means 3 Expires 1/04 Heard about the C AC opening Works for the City of Banning transit service, participated in the Pass Area Transit Study Mary Venerable Social service transportatio n prov ider fo r elderly 1 Commissioner Expires 1/04 Bob Buster Inv olved in c ommunity issues and a member of Lake Elsinore Transportation Now 909-674-3471 Leslie Grosjean-Su nLine Coachella Valley Consolida ted Transportation Service A gency 3 Expires 1/04 SunLine Tra nsit Agency staff Grant Bradshaw-RTA Western Riverside Consolidated Transportation Serv ice A gen cy 3 Riverside Transit Agency staff Expires 1/04 Item 6K 00033 AGENDA ITEM 6L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension and Scope of Project Change for the City of Corona BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Grant the City of Corona a change in the scope of project for their Chase Drive/EI Cerrito Bikeway project and an extension to June 30, 2003, to complete the project; and, 2) Grant the City of Corona an extension to June 30, 2003, to complete the Bus Stop Accessibility project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Corona was allocated $ 193,600 in FY 1999-2000 SB 821 funds for construction of the Phase I and Phase II of the Chase Drive/EI Cerrito Bikeway Project. Phase II of the project has been completed; however, only a portion of Phase I is complete. Phase I has not been completed because it is part of a larger Public Works project and the developer funding has been delayed indefinitely. The delayed project's scope was to raise and adjust the Chase Drive street grades, upon which the remaining portion of the Class I bikeway was to be constructed. The City is proposing not to build this portion of the bikeway as it will significantly increase the project costs due to the additional grading. Instead, the City is requesting to build 5.0 miles of Class 11 bike lanes to provide the continuation of bikeway facilities built along Chase Drive at California Avenue. The City is also requesting an extension to June 30, 2003 to complete the project. The City of Corona was also allocated $116,600 in FY 2001-02 SB 821 funds for the construction of missing sidewalks and ADA ramps in the vicinity of its Corona Cruiser bus stops. However, the Corona Cruiser bus routes were significantly revised effective July 1, 2002, and, therefore, the project was not completed. Item 6L 000040 The City had to revise the list of streets where missing sidewalks and ADA ramps would be installed leading to the new bus stops. The City is also requesting an extension to June 30, 2003 to complete the project. Attachment: Letter from City of Corona 000041 Item 6L CIS 2644 OFFICE OF: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (909) 817-5730 (FAX) viren.shahtci.corona.caus (E -ma December 23, 2002 PWT-061 815 WEST SIXTH STREET, P.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME (http://discovercorona.com) Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 pic ME DEC 2.7 2002 I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUB: CITY OF CORONA SB 821 PROJECTS: REQUEST FOR REVISONS AND TIME EXTENSION City of Corona is requesting approval for proposed revisions to two of the SB 821 funded projects in progress: 1) FY 99/00 Chase DrivelEl Cerrito Bikeway Project: Portions of Phase I and entire Phase II of this project are complete. Of $242,000 of the total project cost, $146,272.40 is expended towards completion of a portion of Phase I and entire Phase II; with a remaining project cost balance of $ 95,727.60. Portion of Phase I could not be completed due to a larger Public Works Project with City and Developer funding has been delayed indefinitely. This delayed project's scope was to raise and adjust the Chase Drive street grades, upon which the remaining portion of the class I bikeway was to be constructed. City is proposing not to build this portion as it will significantly increase the project costs as additional grading cost will impact the total costs significantly. City of Corona requests that the following location change and time extension be approved for this project. A) Scope/Location Change: City is proposing that with the remaining Project Cost balance of $95,727.60, following 5.0 miles of Class II bike lanes be built that will provide continuation of bikeway facilities built along Chase Drive at Califomia Avenue. Class II Bike Lanes at: Califomia Avenue from Ontario Avenue to Foothill Parkway Foothill Parkway from Califomia Avenue to Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue from Foothill Parkway to Ontario Avenue Mangular Avenue from MWD Easement Bike path to Ontario Avenue. B) Time Extension: Approve time extension to June 30, 2003 to complete the proposed 5.0 miles of Class II bike lanes for FY 99/00 Chase Dr/EI Cerrito Rd Bikeway Project. 000042 2) FY 01/02 Bus Stop Accessibility Protect: The scope this project was to build missing sidewalks and ADA ramps in the vicinity of Corona Cruiser bus stops. However, Corona Cruiser bus routes were significantly revised effective July 1, 2002 and therefore, the proposed 'scope of this project needs to be revised in conjunction with the revised bus route and new bus stops. City of Corona requests that the following location change and time extension be approved for this project. A) Location Change: Following are the streets where missing sidewalks and ADA ramps will be installed along the following streets, leading to the new Corona Cruiser bus stops: Sherman Avenue Eighth Street Seventh Street Ninth Street E Street D Street Pleasant view Street Lincoln Avenue Fifth Street Sixth Street Tenth Street Circle City Drive Pine Street Park Street Old Temescal Street Califomia Avenue Cedar Street Merrill Street Filbert Street Vicentia Avenue Rimpau Avenue B) Time Extension: Approve time extension to June 30, 2003 to complete the above mentioned work for FY 01/02 Bus Stop Accessibility Project. Please note that these approvals will enable the City of Corona to execute these SB 821 projects in a most cost effective way. If you have questions or concems, please call me at (909) 736 2235. Sincerely, VIVAtAi Viren Shah, P.E. Transportation Engineer 000043 AGENDA ITEM 6M I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of December averaged 4,013, a 9% decrease from the month of November. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 5% from a year ago December 2001. December on -time performance averaged 97% inbound (no change from November) and 97% outbound (-1 % from November). Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of December averaged 2,730, a 13% decrease from the month of November. The line is unchanged from a year ago December 2001. December on -time performance averaged 90% inbound (-2% from November) and 93% outbound (-2% from November). 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of December averaged 1,617, an 8% increase from the month of November. December on -time performance averaged 93% inbound (+7% from November) and 96% outbound (+2% from November). Item 6M 000044 Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare Rkas Rideshare Incentives: As of December 31St, enrollment was at 179 (Riverside -Downtown 57 Pedley 15, La Sierra 42, and West Corona 65), freeing up 90 spaces for new riders. Parking lot usage at the North Main Corona station will be assessed to determine the feasibility of extending Rideshare2Rails Incentives to this location. If station parking is impacted, approximately a half dozen spaces will be striped for use by passengers who carpool to the station. RTA Express Bus Shuttle: Ridership for the month of December averaged 17 one- way trips per day, a 2% decrease from the month of November that is most likely due to the December holidays. Station Activities North Main Corona Station - "Welcome to Our Neighborhood" Demonstration Project: As new neighbors to the North Main Corona area, RCTC staff has designed a station outreach project to businesses immediately surrounding the station. Six local businesses have agreed to offer discounts to Metrolink passengers who board at the station. In exchange, these businesses have agreed to provide train schedules at their locations and are designated as Station Community Partners. A coupon booklet containing these discounts will be distributed at the station over the next few weeks. Staff will report back on the results of the project. In addition, during the month of February, the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts is partnering with RCTC to provide free admissions for Metrolink ticket holders to the Museum, a Jazz concert, and a chance to enter into a drawing to win a free fender guitar. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities are recorded by station security guards. Attached is summary data covering second quarter 02/03 (October — December 2002). Attachments: 1) Metrolink Performance Summaries (December 2002) 2) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report (October -December 2002) 000045 Item 6M METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES December 2002 11►�I1 l METROLINK 000040 36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 — 28,000 — 26,000 24,000 — 22,000 — 20,000 30,307 Dec -01 Jan -02 32,978 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 33,097 33,57 Feb -02 Mar -02 Apr -02 M ay -02 34,294 34,109 ;I. 147 NV\S s s 33,759 33,485 ''•• HolidayA dj t—Una djAvg Aug -02 S ep -02 34,912 Oct -02 35,170 32 032 \\SI L\S \h\\ \\ \\\ Nov -02 Dec -02 000047 000043 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% - METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday. Trains . (Latest 13. Months) 96% 96% 96% :a 97% 96% 94% 96 % ry; 96% 95 % 96 % 96% 94% 94% Dec 01 Jan 02 Apr 02 May 02 Jun 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 CI % Arriving Within 5 -M inutes Of Scheduled Time Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 000049 of Train Delays. By Responsibility December 2002 Passenger 2% Othe 17% In cludes We ekend S.enlce' TRK-Contractor SCR t -Contra UPRR 7% 2% 6% OP Agree 2% Law-Enf Improv (SCRRA) 2% 10% Vandalism 2% Mechanical 18% \k\N\\\.\\\%N* F 32% % of Train Delays . By. Responsibility 12 Mo nth Period Ending December. 2002 Vand alism 4% Mechanical UPRR 14% I x ‘‘‘)%k \\. \ \\\\\.\\ 000050 PERFORMANCE CHARTS -BACK-UP 110111 M ETRO LINK �r 000051 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY P ASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED .. . 11,3• i ti r: :us.' 'C.iw ; � ,. ... :.,.�, ,. . .., ''a. •#• -'r y*•- 1� .. j... S 14ti.• .. .: ,r ..} 1 .., t,. f .. ...Q '. .ln.".--w.2it. r 2' \t•✓��. .;... . • : .v =�� t�r� :.. :• 1 . •1:... , k...024.0 '.. -,f!f �r.(. .... . b+�.Y,��L J�' . ". � �f�0 � : t.. . •. ..... .: . .n•'�..j,/ . r�{P�c 1 •.:. V. S aJ44 1�'� :: ...C7 ,. _ F' .� .a� ry -.S�rr�. � ._...`. [] per.. l .�r yy�^_,, �x7 �tii�Il:M1.[,. r! 1 ��i:i�� �.:w. S . CTa1' 31 :t.'i ..f �:{7 LtLL � .: h i�N N�LLL a7 ..l ddf`Mi . 1 .+ S=J;•1 u 1�. �, t�a �1`,. ��Y ���o.r. Ir�•irw ' � } ,:�3ra� �` �� L 5 1 .4.P. ... ., r � �I • w. h � ' 7"' � „• • 1 � i .., h� :'r r, '�F ��� , . '4e �G��F�i�� f r i,5 v 1� .k; T O�",�;;L� al`r5 .l•.' f"il'��._., � � r" � ,:. � e A �^�(, J'�I �t1 :;s, ..� '.4�5�. _ Dec 01 3,144 4,898 9,391 452 4,223 5,369 2,733 97 30,307 -8% Jan 02 3,566 4,813 10,086 480 4,596 5,865 2,930 107 32,443 7% Feb 02 3,612 5,031 10,235 464 4,635 5,882 3,010 109 32,978 2% Mar 02 3,650 5,135 10,082 518 4,615 5,931 3,033 133 33,097 0% Apr02 3441 4913 10124 507 4524 5848 2791 109 32257 _ -3% May 02 3,565 5,597 10,039 525 4,288 5,794 2,916 847 33,571 4% Jun 02 3,781 5,694 10,286 533 4,202 5,651 2,982 1,165 34,294 2% Jul 02 3,664 5,840 9,817 510 4,159 5,519 2,958 1,292 33,759 -2 % Aug 02 3,506 5,694 9,688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1,378 33,485 -1% Sep 02 3,689 5,495 10,141 531 4,222 5,432 3,053 1,546 34,109 2% Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,328 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1,584 34,912 2% Nov 02 3,759 6,011 10,411 532 4,444 5,372 3,139 1,492 35,160 1% Dec 02 3,402 5,437 9,516 497 4,031 4,802 2,730 1,617 32,032 -9% % Change Dec 02 vs Nov 02 -9% -10% -9% -7% -9% -11% -13 % 8% -9% % Change Dec 02 vs Dec 01 8% 11% 1% 10% -5% -11% 0% 1567% 6% 000052 Q ADR_MoNew .xls San Bernardin o Line . Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Dec 01 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -02 Note: Sept Includes L.A. County Fair Riders' San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 3500 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000-' 500- 0 Dec 01 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -02 Note: Sunday Service Began 062 5/00 000054 O Av g Daily Riders 3500 3000 - 2500- 2000- 1500- 1000- 500 Antel ope Valley Line Saturday Service Average . Daily Passenger . Trips Dec01 Jan Feb Mar Apr May No te: Sept Includes L.A. County Fair Riders` 3500 3000 4,2 2500- a) IX 2000- >; 1500 - co Q 1000 - Riverside Line Saturday Service Average. Daily. Passenger. Trips 500- 0 °lei J. . 44 Dec01 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -02 Note: Service Began June 24, 2000 - Service Disc ontinued January 19, 2002 000155 10 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage . of Trains Arri ving Within 5 Minut es of Scheduled Time L ATEST . 13 MONTHS Y• ,i!:' -, y , 4 y , �-yy��,�..„�yt@ly':'��- �y{�7} •�-. :Xi l� t '•f 'r8 Y4�7 „/: ,� Ar lf �.. . - ! . _ . •. . �-'- y1, '- , - a+t5c i4�u^S'nrw!�ii�l+� . ..t -!" ))xvb T 1 �' - .. i?:"• ... y .. - r .. . � .... b . � ,1 .. ,{ i�- S ,. �f�Y�7y it RYA, ✓ y j -f . } , l 4 II;1... ..�t. ���,�., -- *1� '• !�y�}��Sn r .J+ " ` ;3' '}'C It ��,n...l'��. �#. ri, . y�-. . �4;i �i�' A a2 . S .f �� .. .� .. . p ✓' i aJ^ . !j .�� l''. • f.. }.,<�.. - �^ .Sl`' 7f s,^$} �.-4 4. ... .. `� h 3 e c �:"t ii Nov 01 98% 100% 97% 97 % 98% 97% 97% 100% 88% 92 % 97% 88% 94 % 98% 95% 95 % 96 % 96% 96% Dec 01 98% 99% - 98% 99 % 98% 97% 98% 99% 91% 90 % 91 % 93% 93% 93% 95% 92 %, 96% 96 % 96% Jan 02 98% 99% 99% 100% 97% 96% 100% 99% 91% 86% 97% 94% 92% 95% 73% 98 % 96% 96 % 96% Feb 02 98% 100% 97% 97% 97 % 97% 99% 98% 95 % 81 % 91 % 97% 90% 98% 85 % 95 % 95% 96% 96 % Mar 02 100% 99% 97% 94% 97% 97 % 99% 100% 92% 94% 98% 96% 95% 95% 86% 98% 97 % 96% 97% Apr 02 99% 100% 97% 93% 98% 95% 100 % 99% 94% 98% 91% 96 % 97% 94% 95% 95% 96 % 96% 96% May 02 99% 97% 98% 98% 97% 96% 100% 98% 96% 92 % 89 % 87 % 87% 92% 87% 83 % 95% 94 % 94% Jun 02 99% 98% 98% 99% 98% 96% 99% 97% 95 % 97 % 93 % 96% 94% 90% 95% 90 % 97% 96 % 96% JuIO2 99% 99% 98% 95% 98% 99% 100% 99% 99 % 96 % 91% 95 % 93% 90 % _ 92 % 92% 97 % 96% 96 % Aug 02 100% 97% 99% 96% 96% 91% 100% 99% 97 % 95 % 89% 91 % 92% 90 % 91 % 90% 96% 94 % 95 % Sep 02 98% 99% 95% 94% 94% 91% 98% 98% 96% 98 % 85% 92% 94 % 84 % 89 % 92% 94% 93% 94 % Oct 02 99% 98% 99% 99% 96% 95% 98% 95% 95% 96 % 92% 96% 93% 93% 92 % 96% 96% 96 % 96% Nov 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 94% 84% 100% 99% 97% 98% 88% 89% 92% 95% _ 86% 94 % 94% 93% 94% Dec 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 91% 99% 100% 97% 97% 96% 97% 90% 93 % 93 % 96% 96% 95% 96% Peak Perio d Trains Arriving Within 5 Minute s of Schedu ed Time Dec 02 i' Et R u'd t i'X VP,+ .5 EEFi� id ' ! :~ tTM.`$ II ti8 Peak Period Trains 960E 96% 100% 96% 98% 89% 98% 100% 97% 97%l 95% 98 % 87 % 92 %' No adjustme nts have been made. for relievable. delays. Terminated trains are. considered OT if they were. on -time. at po int of termination. A nnulled trains are not Include d. in the . on -time. ca lc ulation. • it 000056 C AUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS DECEMBER 2002 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC R/F/L TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 8 7% Slow. Orders/MOW 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 14 12% Track/Switch 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3% Dispatching 2 0 2 0 1 8 13 7 33 28% Mechanical 3 3 8 0 4 3 2 0 23 19% Freight Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Amtrak Train 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 5% Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% Vandalism 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2% Passenger(s) 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 3% SCRRA Hold Policy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Other 1 8 10 0 0 0 5 0 24 20 % TOTAL 12 13 37 1 8 15 22 10 118 100% Saturday SNB 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 Sunday SNB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0 0 0 0 1 000057 12 0212CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION DECEMBER 2002 M INUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL' % of TOT' NO DELAY 369 444 338 225 223 344 198 164 2305 80 .2% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 38 47 254 3 21 40 32 15 450 15.7% 6M IN -10 MIN 6 5 17 0 2 5 4 4 43 1.5% 11 MIN -20 MIN 5 3 15 1 1 7 10 4 46 1.6% 21 MIN -30 MIN 0 1 3 0 2 1 3 1 11 0 .4% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 1 4 2 0 3 2 5 1 18 0.6% ANNULLED 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 0.2% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 419 504 629 229 252 399 252 189 2873 100 % TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 50 60 291 4 29 55 54 25 568 19 .8% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 12 13 37 1 8 15 22 10 118 4 .1% 000053 13 0212FREQ Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated front 10/01/19.2 to 12/31/02 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona N Corona Total 1 - Standard Procedures 1A - RCTC Staff on Site 2 1 1 0 1B - Customer Assistance 94 92 91 93 1C - Ambassador on Site 105 4 28 23 Total 201 97 120 116 60 594 2 - Criminal Incidents 2D - Criminal Behavior 1 0 0 0 0 1 2E - Grafitti 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 40 410 18 178 Total 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4A - Lights 6 0 0 2 3 11 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 24 16 8 12 12 72 4C - Elevator 2 0 6 0 0 8 4D - Station Cleaning 34 31 18 31 1 115 4E - Landscaping 19 20 6 20 0 65 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 0 1 0 0 0 1 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 8 25 11 22 3 69 4G - Pepsi Vending 2 0 0 1 0 3 4H - Other 12 1 12 8 1 34 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity Total 107 94 61 96 20 378 27 11 64 40 6 148 Total 27 11 64 40 6 148 6 - Parked Overnight * 6A - Parked Ovemight 27 4 8 9 5 53 Total 27 4 8 9 5 53 7 - Overflow * 7A - Veh. In Overflow 0 0 64 0 0 64 Total 0 0 64 0 0 64 8 - Parking Citations 8A - Parking Citations 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 -Empty Spaces * 9A - Empty Spaces 61 0 0 270 6 337 Total 61 0 0 270 6 337 91 - R2R Vehicles * 91A - R2R Vehicles 6 1 6 5 0 18 Total 6 1 6 5 0 18 92 - Vehicles Parked * 92A - Vehicles Parked 0 0 0 0 244 244 Total 0 0 0 0 244 244 * Value is averaged over the data entry days Thursday, January 16, �!��20030 � �� 11� Sri- rrriportadhrmr Corrr n*Ao xiare Riverside - Downtown Activity Detail Report Generated from 10/1/02 to 12/31/02 .r Da te Time Activity Log # Descriptio n 10/13/2002 12/5/2002 10:00am 64226 Graffiti noted on blue recycle bin front of statio 65232 Indiv .in custody for public intoxication Activity Type 2 - Crimin al Incidents 2 - Criminal Incidents Activity= Subtype # Vehicles 2E - Grafitti 0 2D - Criminal Behavior 0 Thursday, Jan ua ry 16, 2003 Page 1 of 1 000060 AGENDA ITEM 6N RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 03-019, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Establish Policy Rules and Regulations Regarding Operations at Commuter Rail Stations" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 03-019, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Establish Policy Rules and Regulations Regarding Operations at Commuter Rail Stations". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 1993, the Commission began the operation of two commuter rail stations, Riverside -Downtown and the Pedley Station. In October 1995, two additional commuter rail stations, La Sierra and West Corona, were opened. The Commission recently opened its fifth commuter rail station, North Main Corona, in November 2002. Passenger boardings and alightings at our stations is at an all-time high averaging 2,783 during the month of November 2002. Parking at the new North Main Corona Station is nearing capacity and parking lot expansion projects at the Riverside -Downtown and La Sierra Stations are to be completed within the next few months. The continued success of Metrolink, growth in ridership, and increase in boardings contribute to the attractiveness of our stations for free speech activities and food and beverage vendors. The establishment of formal rules and regulations regarding operations at our rail stations, in consultation with legal counsel, protects the Commission -owned properties by reducing exposure to liability. The nature of the rules and regulations are operational, not programmatic, therefore, the staff recommendation is to delegate authority to the Executive Director by adoption of Resolution 03-019. Attachment: Resolution No. 03-019 000061 Item 6N RESOLUTION NO. 03-019 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH POLICY RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING OPERATIONS AT COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission owns and operates commuter rail stations in Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to delegate to the Executive Director the authority to establish policy rules and regulations regarding operations at commuter rail stations. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to establish policy rules and regulations consistent with current law regarding operations at commuter rail stations. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 000062 Item 6N AGENDA ITEM 60 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Program Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Program Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the status of all RCTC Contracts which are either: 1. Currently in construction; 2. Advertised for receipt of Construction Bids; or 3. In final design, and will be ready to advertise for receipt of Construction Bids within the next six (6) months. The attached RCTC Project Construction Status summary sheet outlines the status of the referenced project as of January 22, 2003. All underlined dates are actual dates and all bold dates are forecasted dates. Attachment: Project Construction Status Summary Sheet 000063 Item 60 Riverside County Transportation C ommission Project Constructi on Status Project Contractor Adverti se Open Bids Award Start C onst Finish Const Projects under C onstruction Adams/Mallory Construction Placentia, CA Lynch Communication, Inc. Riverside, CA Riv erside Const Co ., Inc . Riverside, CA L .D. Anderson, Inc . Bloomington, CA Riverside Const Co., Inc. Riverside, CA Granitex Const. Co., Inc . Costs Mesa, CA To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined 15 -Apr -02 6 -Jun -02 12 -Jun -02 5 -Jul -02 22 -Nov -02 1. North Corona Main Station Operational Station Complete 2. West Corona & LaSierra CCTV Security System 3. State Route 74, Segment I 4. Downtown Riverside Parking Lot Expansion 5. Riverside - LaSierra Parking Expansion - Phase I Projects Recently' Awa rded 15 -Apr -02 4 -Jun -02 12 -Jun -02 22 -Jul -02 25 -Jul -03 28 -Feb -03 29 -Sep -03 14 -Feb -03 21 -Mar -03 16 -May -03 Jun -03 Oct -03 July -05 May -05 20 -May -02 2 -Jul -02 10 -Jul -02 16 -Sep -02 10 -Jun -02 8 -Jul -02 10 -Jul -02 8 -Oct -02 10 -Jun -02 15 -Aug -02 11 -Sep -02 21 -Oct -02 16 -Sep -02 17 -Oct -02 13 -Nov -02 10 -Feb -03 Apr -03 May -03 July -03 Oct -03 1. Pedley Emergency Platform Extension Projects Advertised for Con struc tion Bids 4 -Dec -02 16 -Jan -03 12 -Feb -03 12 -Mar -03 14 -May -03 10 -Sep -03 1. Pedley CCTV Security System 2. Riverside - LaSierra Parking Expansion - Phase II Projects in Fina l Design 4 -Dec -02 6 -Feb -03 14 -Apr -03 21 -A ug -03 3 -Mar -03 14 -Jul -03 1. State Route 60, Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening 2. State Route 74, Segment II Item 60 000064 AGENDA ITEM 6P RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 02-33-063 for the Construction of the CCTV Security System at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an increase to the contract contingency amount of Agreement No. 02-33-063 with Lynch Communication, Inc., by $30,000, from $40,100 to $70,100, to cover the costs for additional unforeseen work associated with the construction of the CCTV Security System at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations and connection to the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1999, with the completion of the South Side Platform/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station was retrofitted with a Closed - Circuit Television (CCTV) Security System. The improvements to the Riverside - Downtown Station included a master monitoring console that would receive the images from the other Riverside County Metrolink Stations. This would allow a single person to be able to monitor each of the stations CCTV systems from one location. By providing 24 -hour monitoring and video recording and centralizing the security system, RCTC will enhance the security currently provided by the station guards and have the option of reducing the number of guard hours at the stations when Metrolink service and patron parking are not present. At its February 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission authorized the retrofitting of both the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink stations with a CCTV Security System. This allowed staff to advertise for bids to construct the CCTV Security Systems at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations. Item 6P 0'0'0065 The project was advertised starting on April 15, 2002, with the Bid Opening on June 4, 2002. The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and on June 12, 2002, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 02-33-063, to Lynch Communication, Inc., for the amount of $139,900.00 plus a contingency of $40,100.00, for a total not to exceed amount of $180,000.00. The effective date for the Notice to Proceed was July 22, 2002, with work beginning at the Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station. During construction of the CCTV Project, four major changes occurred that impacted project delivery. First, the conduit between the West Corona station and State Route 91, where the connection to the Caltrans fiber optic lines occurs, was plugged with roots. Second, there appeared to be a problem with the technology that would allow both the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona signals on the same Caltrans fiber. Third, the conduit linking the Riverside -Downtown Station to the Caltrans fiber system that was planned to be available to the contractor was delayed because that element of work was planned to be constructed with the Riverside -Downtown parking expansion project that is just now nearing completion. Fourth, there were several utilities that were not on the City of Riverside utility maps that were in conflict with the routing of the conduit from the Riverside - Downtown station to the Caltrans fiber optic lines. Staff has worked with the contractor to resolve each of the above problems that were not anticipated when the contract was awarded; however, the Contractor has expended additional resources that were not included in the bid package in order to complete the work. It is currently forecasted that the additional CCTV Project work will exceed the present contingency by approximately $30,000.00. In order to successfully negotiate the closure of these issues with the contractor, staff is requesting that additional project contingency be made available. Staff is recommending that the Commission increase the contingency of RCTC Agreement No. 02-33-063, by $30,000, from $40,100 to $70,100, to cover the costs for additional unforeseen work associated with the construction of the CCTV Security System at the Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations and connection to the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. The total not to exceed contract amount will increase from $180,000 to $210,000. *Please note that subsequent to Budget & Implementation Committee approval, the match portion of source of funding has been revised from Measure "A" to Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Source of Funds: GLA No.: Y Year: FY 2002-03 CMAQ & Local Transportation Funds 221-33-81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $30,000 Budget Ad'ustment: Date: N 1/17/03 OOOd 6P AGENDA ITEM 6Q RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager Robert Wunderlich, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 03-33-035 for Construction of a CCTV Security BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-035 to New Age Communications for the construction of a CCTV Security System at the existing Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, with a data link to the monitoring facilities at the existing Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for the amount of 8199,800.98 plus a contingency amount of 840,199.02 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total contract amount of 8240,000.00; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1999, with the completion of the South Side Platform/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station was retrofitted with a Closed - Circuit Television (CCTV) Security System. The improvements to the Riverside - Downtown Station included a master monitoring console that would receive the images from the other Riverside County Metrolink stations. This would allow a single person to be able to monitor each of the stations CCTV systems from one location. The Commission has also authorized the retrofitting of both the Riverside - La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink stations with a CCTV Security System. By providing 24 -hour monitoring and video recording and centralizing the security system, RCTC will have the option of reducing the number of guard hours at the stations when passenger service and passenger vehicles are not present. 000067 Item 6Q At its December 1999 meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9952, to PB Farradyne, Inc. to perform a Phase I Communications Study to develop the most cost effective means to provide a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station and a data link to connect the Pedley CCTV Security System to the main security system located at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. The results of the Phase 1 Communications Study produced by PB Farradyne was that the most economical way to connect the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV Security System to the Riverside -Downtown monitoring facility was via a telephone T1 connection. RCTC staff concurred with this finding and in July 2001, staff recommended and the Commission authorized the Executive Director to amend Contract No. RO-9952 with PB Farradyne to proceed with the development of Final Engineering Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station, based on the findings of the Phase I Communications Study. The project was advertised starting on December 4, 2002, with the bid opening on January 16, 2003. Three (3) bids were received and opened on January 16, 2003 at 2:00 pm. A summary of the bids received are shown in Table A: TABLE A Construction of a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station Bid Summary Firm (In order from Low bid to High bid) Bid Amount Amount Over Low Bid Engineers Estimate $263,158.75 N/A 1 New Age Communications Ontario, CA $199,800.98 $0.00 2 Moore Electrical Contracting Inc. Corona, CA $258,955.00 $59,154.02 3 Steiny & Company, Inc. $268,871.56 $69,070.58 The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and all concurred that New Age Communications' low bid was the lowest responsive bid received for the project. A summary of the review of the three (3) lowest bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are detailed in Table B: 000063 Item 6Q TABLE B Checklist Item New Age Communication Moore Electrical Contracting Inc. Steiny & Company, Inc. 1 Bid Letter Yes 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 Yes Yes Yes No 3 Bid Bond Yes 1 Yes Yes 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >50% Work Yes Yes Yes 5 Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 Non -Collusion Affidavit Yes Yes Yes 7 Evidence of Insurance No 3 No 3 No 3 Notes: 1 Cashiers Check for $20,000 (exceeds 10% of the bid amount) is attached to the bid. 2 Staff has checked the references listed on bidder forms. The References have all been positive with respect to the Bidder's performance. Staff has verified that Bidder's license is current and active. 3 Bidder did not submit evidence of insurance but staff is currently working with the bidder to verify that they either currently have or can obtain the insurance required prior to award of a construction contract for the project. Table C summarizes the costs associated with the Construction of the CCTV Security Monitoring System at the Pedley Metrolink Station for the three (3) lowest bids received: Item 6Q 000063 TABLE C (Itemized breakdown of the lowest three (3) bids) Item No. Item Description New Age Communication Moore Electrical Contracting Inc. Steiny & Company, Inc. 1 Mobilization & DeMobilization $4,800.00 $12,000.00 $17,366.81 2 Construct Closed Circuit Televison System (CCTV) at the existing Pedley Station. $54,200.00 $75,000.00 $181,692.21 3 Construct Data Link from the Pedley Station to the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station $22,310.00 $59,500.00 $6,916.76 4 Construct Video monitoring and recording facilities for the Pedley Station, at the Downtown Metrolink Station $76,050.98 $69,000.00 $13,007.71 5 Builder's All Risk Insurance $1,500.00 $1,165.00 $1,717.05 6 Railroad Protective Liability Insurance $1,400.00 $2,750.00 $8,631.02 7 UPRR Flagging $39,540.00 ' $39,540.00 $39,540.00 GRAND TOTAL $199,800.98 $258,955.00 $268,871.56 Based on the bid review process, staff is recommending that the Commission award Agreement No. 03-33-035 for the construction of a CCTV Security System at the existing Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station that includes a data link to the monitoring facilities at the existing Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Commuter Rail Station to New Age Communications for the amount of $199,800.98, plus a contingency amount of $40,199.02 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $240,000.00. The standard RCTC construction contract will be used, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. *Please note that subsequent to Budget & Implementation Committee approval, the match portion source of funding has been revised from Measure "A" to Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Source of Funds: GLA No.: Y Year: FY 2002-03 CMAQ & Local Transportation Funds 221-33-81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: OOiiO7O) Amount: $ 240,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 01/17/03 Item 6Q AGENDA ITEM 6R RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 03-31-054 with the County of Riverside Construct Right Turn Lanes on Gilman Springs Road State Route 79 to to BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve entering into Shared Funding Agreement No. 03-31-054 with the County of Riverside for the construction of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road to SR 79 for $100,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its October 1996 meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare the Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PSE) package for the installation of a median barrier in Lamb Canyon between Gilman Springs Road and the County Land Fill Road. As part of this approval, the Commission directed Staff to investigate the possibility of constructing right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road to provide for a safer access to SR 79. The Commission committed a not to exceed amount of $100,000 for the construction of these right turn lanes at Gilman Springs Road. The actual construction cost for these improvements is estimated to be $254,000. Staff has been working with the County of Riverside to find a way that this project can be delivered for the stipulated amount. Presently, the County of Riverside has several projects on Gilman Springs Road. The portion of the project adjacent to the junction with State Route 79 will shortly go to construction. Staff has discussed this project with the County and they have agreed to add the construction of the right turn lanes to their Gilman Springs Road improvement project. RCTC will provide the County a not to exceed dollar amount to construct the right turn lanes 000071 Item 6R of $100,000. The County will be responsible for any amount above the $100,000 limit, currently estimated to be $154,000 in addition to any construction management costs. RCTC has contracted with an engineering design firm and has completed a PS&E package for the improvements of right turn lanes at Gilman Springs Road. RCTC has submitted a copy of the design plans of this project to the County of Riverside for County's review and approval. Upon approval of the design plans for the project by the County and Caltrans, the County has agreed to construct the project as the second segment of the County's "Gilman Springs Road Southerly of Bridge Street to State Highway 79 Project". Staff now recommends that the Commission enter into a shared funding agreement with the County of Riverside. RCTC and the County have agreed to share the construction costs incurred as part of the right turn lanes at Gilman Springs Road and that RCTC's share of the total construction costs for this project will not exceed $100,000. The County will be responsible for the balance for the total construction cost of the project including any construction managements costs associated with the project delivery. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2002-03 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/17/03 Attachment: Draft Share Funding Agreement No. 03-31-054 000072 Item 6R DRAFT Agreement No. 03-31-054 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHARE FUNDING AGREEMENT This Share Funding Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of , 2003 ("Effective Date"), by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") and the County of Riverside (the "County"). RCTC and the County are hereinafter sometimes referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties." RECITALS A. RCTC has contracted with an engineering contractor for design services (including, but not limited to, Final Plans, Specifications and Estimate) for the following improvements at Route 79/Gilman Springs Road: (1) Widen westbound Gilman Springs Road to provide an exclusive right - turn lane onto northbound Route 79 entrance ramp; (2) Widen eastbound Gilman Springs Road to provide an exclusive right turn lane onto southbound Route 79 entrance ramp (also known as Sanderson Avenue); (3) Modification of drainage systems, ramp lighting, etc. (Collectively, the "Project"). B. RCTC has submitted the design plans for the Project to the County for the County's approval of such design plans. C. Upon approval by the County of the design plans for the Project, the County has agreed to construct the Project as the second segment of the County's Gilman Springs Road Southerly of Bridge Street to SH79 project. Item 6R 000073 D. RCTC shall pay for 100% of the design costs associated with the Project. E. RCTC and the County wish to share in the costs of construction of the Project and the Parties agree to share such costs pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: TERMS 1.0 Design by RCTC's Contractor. RCTC shall pay for 100% of the design costs of the Project. 2.0 Construction by County. Upon approval by the County of the design plans for the Project, the County agrees to construct the Project as the second segment of the County's Gilman Springs Road Southerly of Bridge Street to SH79 project. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the approved design plans. 3.0 Reimbursement of Share of Construction Cost. 3.1 Construction Cost. RCTC and the County agree to share the construction costs incurred pursuant to the Project. RCTC's share of the total construction costs for the Project is $100,000. The County shall pay for the balance of the total construction costs for the Project. 3.2 Reimbursement. RCTC shall reimburse the County for its share of construction costs (up to $100,000 pursuant to Section 3.1 above) within 30 days of a presentation of an invoice as follows: (A) The invoice shall be signed by a responsible agent of the County and prepared on the County's letterhead, compiled on the basis of the actual cost and expense incurred. (B) The final billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs charged pursuant to this Agreement, and less any amounts covered by previous progress billings. OOOO'14 Item 6R Once the County has received $100,000 in reimbursements from RCTC for construction costs for the Project, RCTC shall have no further obligations under this Agreement. 4.0 Project Cancellation Procedure. If the County's Construction Project is cancelled or modified so as to eliminate the necessity of work by the County, the County will notify RCTC in writing within a reasonable period of time and the County reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and conditions for terminating the Agreement. 5.0 Amendment, Modification, or Supplement. The Parties agree to review and abide by the provisions of this Agreement. Should the Parties believe that an amendment, modification, or supplement is necessary to this Agreement, the Parties agree to confer and cooperate in good faith to make the necessary amendment, modification, or supplement. No amendment, modification, or supplement to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by the Parties. Any valid amendment, modification, or supplement to this Agreement shall have no effect on any other provision of this Agreement, including all indemnity requirements. 6.0 Indemnification by RCTC. RCTC shall indemnify and hold the County, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers free and harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, losses, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, arising out of or incident to any negligent act or omission by RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers pursuant to this Agreement made by RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. Indemnification by RCTC includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of the County, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. RCTC's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the County, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 7.0 Indemnification IN the County. The County shall indemnify and hold RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers free and harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, losses, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, arising out of or incident to any negligent act or omission by the County, its 0000' Item 6R elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers pursuant to this Agreement made by the County, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. Indemnification by the County includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. The County's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 8.0 Notices. Notification under this Agreement, except for written notices required or authorized herein, may be made by telephone or such other means as mutually agreed to among the Parties. Any written notice required or authorized under this Agreement shall be delivered in person or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, as specified below: To County: George Johnson, Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon Street, Eighth Floor P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502-1090 To RCTC: Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Any Party, may, by notice to the other Party, change the designation or address of the person so specified as the one to receive notice pursuant to this Agreement. 9.0 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any lawsuit brought in connection with this Agreement shall be brought in the appropriate court in the County of Riverside, California. 10.0 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought in connection with this Agreement, the successful or prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other related costs, in addition to any other relief to which the Party is entitled. 11.0 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement and the Parties agree to execute all documents and proceed with due diligence to complete all covenants and conditions. 0000'/6 Item 6R 12.0 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument. 13.0 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall constitute in full force and effect. 14.0 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the Parties and supersedes any prior oral or written statements or agreements between the Parties. 15.0 Signature Clause. The signatories hereto represent that they have been appropriately authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom they sign. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Ron Roberts, Chairperson John F. Tavaglione, Chairperson Reviewed and Recommended for Approval: Attest: By: By: Eric Haley Name Executive Director Title Approved as to Form: By; Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 000077 Item 6R AGENDA ITEM 6S RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Survey and Material Services in Support of Future Measure "A" Commuter Rail Construction Projects Testing On -Call Highway and BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide Survey and Material Testing On -Call Services in support of future Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of staff representatives from RCTC, County of Riverside, City of Riverside, City of Moreno Valley, City of Perris, and Caltrans, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFPs received; and, 3) Negotiate contracts with the top ranked consultant(s) and return to the Commission with contract recommendations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In August 1997, the Commission directed staff to advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide Survey and Material Testing On -Call Services in support of Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects which were scheduled to go to construction at the start of 1998. Staff followed through with the Commission's direction, placing advertisements for RFP's for Survey and Material Testing Services. Selection committees were formed, the submitted RFPs were evaluated, shortlists of the highest ranked qualified firms were selected, the shortlisted firms were interviewed and ranked by the respective selection committee, staff negotiated contracts with the respective highest ranked firms, and recommendations for contract award were forwarded to the Commission. 0000 f 8 Item 6S In October 1997, the Commission awarded the following: On -Call Material Testing Contract #RO-9832 Ninyo & Moore On -Call Surveying Services #RO-9833 County of Riverside Over the past five (5) years, the Commission has amended Ninyo & Moore's and the County of Riverside's Contract to provide Material Testing and Surveying Services, respectively, for the following Measure "A" Construction Projects: • Southside Platform and Pedestrian Overcrossing at the Riverside Downtown Station • Pigeon Pass Park and Ride Lot on State Route 60 • State Route 91 Soundwall #35 between Van Buren and Tyler • State Route 91 Phase I Soundwalls between Magnolia to Mary • Pedestrian Crossing at the Riverside La Sierra Metrolink Station • Pedestrian Crossing at the Riverside West Corona Metrolink Station • State Route 91 Soundwall #98 • State Route 91 Soundwall #635 • State Route 91 Soundwall #110, #121, & #161 • State Route 91 Soundwall #36 • North Main Corona Metrolink Station • Riverside La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Projects • Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project • Pedley Metrolink Station Emergency Platform Extension Project Both Ninyo & Moore and the County of Riverside have provided the respective requested services, for the above referenced projects, in a professional, timely, and cost effective manner. Because it has been over five (5) years since the Commission selected and awarded contracts for Material Testing and Surveying Services, staff is recommending that the Commission direct staff to initiate a new selection process to provide Survey and Material Testing On -Call Services to support construction of the following new Measure "A" Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Projects: • Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Southside Parking Lot Project • San Jacinto Branchline Metrolink Rail and Station Improvement Projects OOOOn Item 6S The tentative schedule for the selection process is as follows: Advertise Request for Proposals February 17, 2003 Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline March 20, 2003 Shortlist Top Three Firms April 4, 2003 Interview Top Three Firms April 17, 2003 Committee Recommendation to Commission May 14, 2003 Staff is proposing to form a selection team that includes Caltrans, the County of Riverside, the City of Riverside, the City of Moreno Valley, the City of Perris, and RCTC/Bechtel staff. The results of the selection panel will be brought to the Commission for review and recommendation for a contract award. 000030 Item 6S AGENDA ITEM 6T RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise Bids for Construction State Route 60 HOV Project in Moreno Valley of the BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve entering into a Project Construction Program Supplement to obligate CMAQ funding for construction of the SR 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in the City of Moreno Valley; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Supplement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise bids for construction of the SR 60 HOV lanes within the City of Moreno Valley, contingent upon finalization of the Project Construction Program Supplement and receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; and, 4) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 1999 meeting, the Commission approved moving forward with the delivery of the State Route 60 HOV Median -Widening Project. This Measure "A" HOV widening project is largely funded with CMAQ funds. The eight mile project is located between the east junction of Interstate 215 with SR 60 in the City of Riverside and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley. 000081 Item 6T Design At its February 9, 2000 meeting, the Commission awarded a final design contract agreement for the subject project to Holmes & Narver Infrastructure now DMJM + Harris. During its December 12, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the Design Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1 173 for the design work to be performed on the SR 60 HOV Project. We anticipate that the final design package will be to Caltrans for final sign -off by the end of January 2003. Environmental Clearance The SR 60 HOV Project was determined to be Categorically Exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Categorically Excluded under NEPA. The Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE/CE) Determination for the project was originally completed on August 12, 1993. An updated CE/CE Determination, a CE Re -Evaluation and supporting technical studies were prepared and processed in conjunction with a Supplemental Project Report for environmental clearance of the proposed project. The updated CE/CE Determination for the project was approved and environmentally cleared on May 23, 2002. Right -of -Way Acquisition of the right-of-way for the project is currently underway. The right-of-way that is necessary for the project is required so that sound walls may be constructed to mitigate for the expected increase in noise generated from the traffic using the new HOV lanes. It is currently estimated that 125 temporary construction easements, 5 permanent easements and 23 fee takes will be required to construct the sound walls for the project. We anticipate that the final right-of-way certification will be completed by the end of February 2003. Funding Funding for the project is $37,005,880 of Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) matched with $6,000,000 of Measure "A". To retain the CMAQ federal funding for this project, a Program Supplement Agreement must be entered into by RCTC and Caltrans. The Program Supplement amends the Agency -State Agreement for Federal -Aid Projects No. 08-6054 to specifically describe the costs and special conditions that apply to the construction of the SR 60 HOV Project in Moreno Valley. 000082 Item 6T Construction At its December 11, 2002 meeting, RCTC approved entering into Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 03-31-036 (State Agreement No. 8-1209). After the PS&E for the project is completed and approved by Caltrans and the right of way has been certified as available for construction, a Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction will be submitted to the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. The Program Supplement Agreement can than be finalized by RCTC and Caltrans. The subsequent Authorization to Proceed and Obligation of Federal Funds will be the basis for the financial responsibilities to be outlined in the Program Supplement. The project is expected to be advertised in March and awarded in May 2003. The project will take two years to complete. This action is being brought forward to the Committee at this time in an effort to have the CMAQ funds obligated prior to the expected expiration date of May 2003. The Engineer's Estimate for the construction of the SR 60 HOV Project in Moreno Valley, is in the range of approximately $35,000,000 to $37,000,000. There is no new funding or budget request included with this action. 000083 Item 6T AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Report on State Budget Discussions and Impact on Transportation Programs BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive the oral report presented by D.J. Smith and Eric Haley. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: There are continuing discussions on the issues and potential impacts of the State budget shortfall on transportation projects. D.J. Smith, Commission's State lobbyist, will be present at the meeting to provide a report on activities occurring at the State level as it relates to the budget and impact to transportation, as well as status of current and future legislation. Eric Haley will inform the Commission on meetings that he has attended regarding the State budget. 000084 Item 7 AGENDA ITEM 8 LRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: CETAP Advisory Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Development Planning and Policy THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CETAP Internal Corridors Recommendations CETAP ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Summary of Comments received on the CETAP Draft EIS/EIRs; 2) Consider the proposal from the Federal Agencies to expeditiously work together towards agreement on a single alternative for both CETAP corridors; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute a Memorandum of Understanding which will outline the funding, schedule, data and analyses commitments made between the Federal Agencies, Caltrans, the County, and RCTC; 4) Approve an extended schedule and additional work on the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor; and, 5) Consider selection of the hybrid alternative as the Preferred Alternative for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor, pending final consensus from the Federal Agencies, with the consideration of a connection between State Route 79 and 1-215 in Tier 2 or as part of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Summary of Comments The last few months have been very busy with work on the CETAP internal corridors. Per direction received from the Commission, five additional public hearings were held to gain public input on the alternatives being considered for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor and the Winchester to Temecula Corridor. Hearings were held as follows: 000085 Item 8 Hearing Location Date Number That Signed In Temecula December 18, 2002 97 Lake Elsinore December 19, 2002 54 Perris January 9, 2003 42 Winchester January 16, 2003 156 Corona January 21, 2003 51 A court reporter was present at all of the meetings to record public testimony. A summary of the comments received at these five public hearings, the two public hearings held in August 2002, and all written comments is included as Attachment I. Much of the testimony provided at the meetings, as well as written comments, centered around substantial resident/property owner opposition to Alternatives 5a/5b and 7a/7b in the Winchester to Temecula (WT) Corridor. This opposition is based on concerns regarding effects on rural communities, impacts to new development that has been approved or built since the CETAP analyses were conducted, and concerns regarding the combined effects of staff recommended alternatives WT 7b and Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) 5c on Menifee. In addition to these comments from the general public, representatives from the Cities of Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris and San Jacinto stated their support for Alternative 1 b and/or H1 in the HCLE Corridor. The Federal Resource Agencies (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)) provided significant comments on the environmental documents. Numerous meetings have been held between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Resource Agencies to discuss their comments and to determine the magnitude of additional work that may be required to address their concerns. On January 24, 2003 a meeting was held wherein the Federal Agencies proposed a process which they believed would allow us to reach agreement on a single alternative for each CETAP corridor and use of the EIS/EIRs as the Section 404(b)(1) offsite alternatives analysis in Tier 2, two central goals of the CETAP effort. Summary of the Federal Proposal Attachment 11 is a copy of the Federal Proposal. Basically, the proposal includes a commitment to actively work with the RCTC, the County and Caltrans to reach agreement on a single alternative for each CETAP corridor. The Resource Agencies have identified additional information/analyses needed for each Agency to be able to make a decision and commit that if agreement cannot be reached among all parties, the decision will be elevated to successively higher levels within each organization until consensus is reached. The Agencies have agreed that they will not request additional information other than that noted in their proposal. Item 8 1)UUt}8• Acceptance of the proposal as presented will require an 8 -month extension of the CETAP schedule to allow time for gathering and analyzing the additional data and preparing a Supplemental Draft EIS/Recirculated Draft EIR (DSEIS/DREIR). The Federal Agencies acknowledge that RCTC and the County have taken action to require that the work on the CETAP Internal Corridors be wrapped up by July 1, 2003, and that no additional local funding and support will be forthcoming. In order to assist with the costs associated with meeting their information request, the EPA has agreed to provide $300,000 to the County for limited planning level wetlands delineation and functional assessment in the Santa Ana Watershed. The Federal Highway Administration will seek at least $500,000 in Environmental Streamlining funding once the FY2003 Federal Budget is passed. While the offer of funding is positively received by staff, we also recognize that the $800,000 will support about 50% of the effort needed to complete the work. On January 28, 2003, an additional meeting was held to discuss the Federal Proposal in greater detail and determine possible opportunities to streamline the process. It appears that there may be opportunities to address the Resource Agencies' issues on the Winchester to Temecula Corridor without the need for a supplemental environmental document and we are working closely with the Federal Agencies to reach agreement on this corridor. On the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, we continue to believe our DEIS/DEIR was sufficient to allow a decision on a single alternative. However, given the Federal Agencies' offer to provide funding to support inclusion of additional information which will enable the Federal Resource Agencies to provide RCTC greater certainty, we recommend that the Commission agree to the Federal Proposal and direct staff to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RCTC, the County, Caltrans and the Federal Agencies which outlines the commitments, timelines, and funding support to allow completion of a supplemental environmental document for the HCLE Corridor. This issue was discussed at the CETAP Advisory Committee meeting on February 4th and the Committee unanimously recommends the Commission accept the Federal Proposal for the HCLE Corridor. Winchester to Temecula Corridor In October 2002, staff recommended Alternative 7b for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor. Based on information received during the comment period for the Draft EIR/EIS as well as public testimony heard at the five public hearings held in December and January with regard to community impacts, we have taken another look at all the alternatives considered in the environmental document to determine other opportunities to meet the goals of CETAP. Many of the issues 000087 Item 8 raised through the public process focused on the rapid development being experienced in the Menifee area and the urgent need to address improvements to our existing freeway facilities. Staff has also worked closely with Caltrans and the Resource Agencies over the last few months reviewing and considering the corridor alternatives. The CETAP Advisory Committee, at their meeting of February 4, 2003, discussed at length the various alternatives for this corridor and recommend that the Commission support the Hybrid Alternative as the preferred alternative for the WT Corridor with consideration of an additional connection between SR 79 and 1-215 north of Menifee Lakes in Tier 2 or as part of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore study. The Hybrid Alternative coincides with existing roadways in the area and includes the following: widening of 1-15 from its junction with 1-215 to Winchester Road to seven lanes in each direction (six lanes plus one HOV lane) and south of Winchester Road to six lanes in each direction (five lanes plus one HOV lane); widening of 1-215 south of Newport Road to five lanes in each direction (four lanes plus one HOV), construction of the Date Street (French Valley Parkway) connection as a four -lane arterial from Winchester Road to 1-15, with a new interchange at I- 15. Keeping in mind the early tenets of CETAP, to balance community, environment and transportation needs, we believe the Hybrid Alternative as recommended by the CETAP Advisory Committee achieves our early goals, with the recognition that we will need to address a connection between SR 79 and 1-215 in the Tier 2 work or as part of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore study. Therefore, staff fully supports the CETAP Advisory Committee's recommendation. Item 8 000083 ATTACHMENT I SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON CETAP DRAFT EIS/EIRS Introduction This document provides a summary of the major issues and comments raised during the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) for the Winchester to Temecula (WT) Corridor and the DEIS/DEIR for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Corridor. The Response to Comments documents currently in preparation for both the WT and HCLE Corridors will: • Review the environmental process that has been completed to date and what is planned for the next phases of the internal CETAP Corridors; • Provide an overview of the public review and comment process for the DEIS/DEIRs; • Summarize major issues and comments that were raised during the public review period; • Respond to each comment received on the Draft EIS/EIR through a combination of General and Specific responses; and • Provide a copy of all comments received during the public review period, organized in the groups shown below, and bound in a separate volume, which will become part of the Final EIS/EIR for each Corridor. For the WT Corridor, approximately 365 comment letters were received, plus about 1,650 form letters from individual citizens expressing opposition to either Alternatives 5a/5b or to Alternatives 7a/7b. In addition, about 90 comment forms were submitted at the public hearings held in August, 2002. Altogether, almost 1,900 specific comments were made on the WT DEIS/DEIR that will be addressed in the Responses to Comments (many letters contained more than one comment). For the HCLE Corridor, approximately 75 comment letters were received. In addition, about 35 comment forms were submitted at the public hearings held in August, 2002. Altogether, almost 600 specific comments were made on the HCLE DEIS/DEIR that will be addressed in the Responses to Comments (many letters contained more than one comment). There are two types of comments that have been received: 1) comments that raise substantive concerns on the DEIS/DEIRs that require a detailed response and possible document revisions in the Final EIS/EIRs, and, 2) comments that reflect the Item 8 000080 opinions of the commentator in support or opposition to one or more CETAP alternatives. In addition to the comment letters received during the formal public review period of the DEIS/DEIRs, RCTC also received several hundred letters and e -mails regarding the CETAP internal corridors during the "scoping" period for the DEIS/DEIRs in August, 2001. Scoping is conducted prior to preparing a DEIS/DEIR gain public input on the alternatives and issues to be studied. Comment Organization All comment letters or transcribed public hearing comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIRs are organized into the following categories (shown below). Specific agencies that provided comments on either document are named beneath each heading. The actual comments are provided in a separate document. Federal Agencies United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) State Agencies State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse State of California, Department of Fish and Game State of California, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics State of California, Department of Transportation, District 8 Regional Agencies County of San Diego Southern California Regional Rail Authority Imperial County, Planning and Building Department Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Department of Parks and Recreation, Inland Empire District Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) March Joint Powers Authority Metrolink Item 8 000090 Local Agencies City of Canyon Lake City of Corona City of Corona/Moreno Valley/Riverside (joint letter) City of Lake Elsinore City of Perris City of Temecula Romoland School District Temecula Valley Unified School District Organizations Nineteen comment letters were received from organizations such as the Sierra Club (San Gorgonio Chapter) and Building Industry Association, as well as major property owners (such as the Warmington Land Company, Winchester Hills Property Owners). Individuals Approximately 320 comment letters were received from the general public, plus about 1,650 form letters from individual citizens expressing opposition to either WT Alternatives 5a/5b or to WT Alternatives 7a/7b. Public Hearings of December, 2002, and January, 2003 Following the close of the formal public review period of the DEIS/DEIRs on November 15, 2002, RCTC conducted additional public hearings in December, 2002, and January, 2003. The meetings and approximate number of attendees are listed below. Temecula, December 18, 2002 (97 attendees) Lake Elsinore, December 19, 2002 (54 attendees) Perris, January 9, 2003 (42 attendees) Winchester, January 16, 2003 (156 attendees) Corona, January 21, 2003 (51 attendees) Although these hearings were conducted after the close of the formal public comment period on the DEIS/DEIRs, any substantive comments raised at the hearings that were not raised during the formal public review period will be addressed in the Responses to Comments for the Final EIS/EIRs. Item 8 00009. MAJOR ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIRS As stated earlier, final responses to all comments will be provided in the Final EIS/EIR. A summary of the major issues raised in the comments on the Draft EIS/EIR is provided below. It should be noted that the comments summarized below do not reflect all of the comments received during the public review period. Federal Agency Concerns/Comments Some of the most significant comments on the two documents have come from the federal resource agencies, in particular the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Many of these same concerns were also raised in comments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Key issues and initial responses are summarized below. 1. Category 3 rating (Inadequate) of the DEIS: EPA contends that the issues they have been raising throughout the project development process have not been addressed (references are made to numerous prior letters) and therefore, the data provided in the DEIS is inadequate for federal decision making. A Category 3 rating requires revision and recirculation of the DEIS. Response: At each stage in the process, detailed discussions of data/analysis have occurred, with agreements reached on what base data/assumptions would be used, the scope of the analysis, and how the results/findings would be presented within the constraints of the CETAP schedule and budget. RCTC contends that all data/analysis agreed to date by EPA and FHWA through the NEPA/404 process has been provided in the technical reports and summarized in the DEIS. According to FHWA staff, there is far more data and analysis provided for CETAP than for any previous route location study decision. 2. No Build Land Use Assumptions: EPA has challenged the notion that the land use cannot be assumed to be the same with and without the CETAP corridors. Response: This fundamental assumption has been discussed many times before, and was addressed in detail in the supplemental information submitted to EPA requested for their concurrence on Purpose and Need. The General Plan Buildout is the base land use assumption that has been used for analysis. The potential effect of Land Use Changes is discussed in Section 4.16.8.3 of each DEIS/DEIR. Item 8 000092 3. Information Does Not adequately address the Evaluation Criteria: EPA wants the document to specifically address the Evaluation Criteria agreed to on June 14, 2002. Response: The DEIS's were not re -formatted to follow the final version of the Evaluation Criteria, since the final documents for public circulation were being prepared at that time. Each of the seven evaluation criteria are addressed in the DEIS. A summary table was provided to EPA staff at a meeting in August, 2002, providing a correlation of where each element of the Evaluation Criteria was addressed in the DEIS. 4. A Single Revised DEIS covering both corridors should be prepared and recirculated: EPA believes looking at the two corridors separately hinders their analysis. Response: Each corridor does stand on its own in terms of independent utility; therefore, separate EISs are appropriate. To address this concern, the cumulative impact analysis in the HCLE EIS can be expanded to more explicitly discuss the additional (cumulative) impacts resulting from implementing the alternatives within the other corridor. 5. Indirect effects/Growth Inducement discussion is inadequate: EPA believes that these topics are not adequately addressed, in part due to their contention that land use will be different with and without the CETAP corridors (see No.2 above). Response: See Response to No. 2. To address this concern, the analysis of impacts resulting from General Plan buildout can be reviewed and incorporated from the General Plan Draft EIR which will be considered, which was not yet complete at the time the CETAP EISs were prepared. 6. Connected, Similar, and Cumulative Transportation Projects: EPA believes there should be more specific discussion of these projects (SR -79 realignment, Inter -County Corridors, etc.) in the cumulative analysis. Response: A more specific qualitative discussion of these projects can be provided in the documents; a quantitative discussion is not realistic since very little data has been developed for the Inter -County corridors. 000093 Item 8 7. Cumulative Effects: EPA believes the cumulative analysis is inadequate. Their comment requested that the 1997 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for assessing cumulative impacts be followed. Response: The 1997 CEQ guidance on assessing cumulative impacts was followed with respect to focusing on specific resources and establishes the geographic scope of the analysis of these resources. The CEQ guidance acknowledges the complexities of cumulative effects analysis and provides for flexibility in determining the appropriate scope of each cumulative analysis. FHWA has requested that EPA provide examples of what they deem to be sufficient cumulative impact analyses. To date, only two examples have been provided that are essentially not applicable to CETAP, since they are for construction level documents for projects of a much smaller geographic scale than CETAP (i.e., they are for freeway interchange projects). 8. Section 404/Clean Water Act Considerations: EPA believes that the analysis is not sufficient o be used for purposes of reaching concurrence on a single alternative most likely to yield the LEDPA in each corridor. They have requested that the SAMP data be incorporated into the analysis. Response: RCTC and FHWA have previously committed to addressing the SAMP data relative to the CETAP corridors within the context of the Response to Comments on the Draft EIS and in the Final EIS. This will be done to the extent that the SAMP data sets can be applied within the CETAP analyses; however, the fundamental limitations of the SAMP data must be recognized (e.g., only partial SAMP data coverage in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor). 9. Endangered Species/MSHCP: EPA is requesting more detailed documentation of threats to species and habitat, including those from non - transportation projects. EPA believes the analysis is flawed regarding the CETAP/MSHCP relationship since the maps show areas with General Plan land use designations that are also identified within the MSHCP criteria area. Response: The more detailed species analysis requested by EPA is part of the MSHCP documentation and can be incorporated by reference. With regard to General Plan/ MSHCP land use "inconsistencies", EPA appears to be unclear on the criteria -based nature of the MSHCP. Item 8 000094 10. Air Quality Analysis: EPA believes the air quality analysis is inadequate due to concerns on the underlying traffic model assumptions, certain standards not being addressed, and that project -level transportation conformity findings are being deferred until Tier 2. Response: The underlying traffic model assumptions were submitted to EPA in early 2001 as part of the request for their concurrence on purpose and need. These assumptions should not have to be revisited. While key assumptions can be summarized in the EIS, it is not appropriate to include all of the detailed modeling methodology in the EIS; rather, the detail is provided in the Traffic Analysis technical report. Issues and transportation conformity and additional standards can be addressed in the Final EIS in consultation with FHWA. 11. Elimination of Most Environmentally Damaging Alternatives: EPA believes that, assuming a single revised Draft EIS is prepared addressing both corridors, that it would be appropriate to eliminate the most environmentally damaging alternatives to streamline the EIS discussion and analysis. Response: As noted in No. 1 above, we do not believe a revised Draft EIS is warranted since the issues raised in EPA's letter can be addressed in the Final EIS. As noted in No. 4 above, we do not believe a single EIS should be prepared since both corridors have independent utility. The Final EIS will have focused discussion of the recommended alternative that is considered most likely to yield the LEDPA. 12. Better substantiation of the basis for eliminating Alternative 3 (Van Buren) from the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor: EPA believes that the rationale for eliminating Alternative 3 was not sufficiently documented in the Draft EIS. Response: A more detailed discussion of the basis for rejecting Alternative 3 will be included in the Final EIS. Other General Concerns/Comments A number of issues were raised frequently in letters from public agencies, interested organizations, and individuals. These comments will be addressed with General Responses that discuss the issue thoroughly. Key issues are discussed below along with a summary of the draft response. Item 8 00009► 1 More or different alternatives should have been considered to avoid impacts to existing/approved homes and neighborhoods. Response: The CETAP alternatives were developed through extensive involvement of local, state, regional, and federal agencies, stakeholder groups, and the public. The selection of alternatives to be studied reflected the sometimes competing objectives of providing a transportation facility that will meet future traffic demand in the study area, while minimizing impacts to both the built and natural environment in full compliance with CEQA/NEPA. 2. The CETAP Corridors will result in community impacts/disruptions. Response: The maps of the alternative routes in the DEIS/DEIRs show the reservation area for future right-of-way for a possible highway facility in those various locations. Even though the ultimate right-of-way width has not yet been determined, the very location of some of the alternatives could have impacts beyond direct property acquisitions and displacements by dividing neighborhoods, fragmenting the edges of neighborhoods, and separating resident children from their schools. These impacts were acknowledged in the documents. Due to the time elapsed between the preparation of the initial technical studies in mid -2001, and the release of the DEIS/DEIRs in July, 2002, it is very likely that new homes have been built and new tracts approved that were not in place of the time of the analysis. Updated information will be considered to the extent feasible within the constraints of the CETAP schedule and budget in the Final EIS/EIRs; however, it must be acknowledged that existing/approved land uses will always be in flux in a fast growing area like western Riverside County. 3. Developers did not disclose CETAP routes to prospective home buyers. Response: Certain commentators stated that they had recently purchased a home in an area potentially affected by one or more of the CETAP alternatives and questioned either why the development had been allowed or why the developer had not disclosed to them that there could be a new transportation corridor built in the future that could impact the property. Development is ongoing in western Riverside County, as in other growing areas. At any given time, there are proposals for public infrastructure development under consideration and in review by public agencies. Developers are not required to disclose proposed transportation projects that have not yet been approved by the appropriate governing agencies (e.g., projects that are not adopted as part of a City or County General Plan). Item 8 000096 4. The CETAP Corridors will generate new development. Response: All of the components of the RCIP are based on population and growth forecasts, generated and adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments for western Riverside County. The new General Plan addressed forecasted future growth by identifying areas suitable for development and for providing the density ranges needed to accommodate future population increases. The General Plan also identifies areas that should remain very low density or open space, in order to preserve some of the existing character and landscape of Riverside County. The MSHCP provides habitat conservation opportunities that protect natural resources and allow for the permitting needed for new development. Similarly, the CETAP corridor studies are based on a comparison of the future street network, as provided for in the new Circulation Element, and the transportation demand that will be generated by the future population as anticipated in adopted, regional forecasts. 5. The need for the CETAP Corridors is questioned, and it is suggested that improvements to the County's arterial expressway system will provide sufficient transportation capacity. Response: The No Build Alternative for each CETAP Corridor includes the planned expansion of the County's arterials, consistent with the proposed General Plan Circulation Element. The transportation analysis showed that each CETAP alternative provided measurable benefits in terms of delay reduction and time savings when compared to the No Build Alternative. As RCTC staff has noted in previous presentations, the mobility benefits vary between the different route alternatives. 6. WT Alternatives 7a and 7b do not address north -south traffic demand. Response: The combination of each of the WT Alternatives with the realignment of SR -79 to the north improves north -south travel between 1-10 in Beaumont and 1-15 in Temecula. Several of the alternatives in the WT Corridor, including 7a and 7b, proceed from northeast to southwest as part of the accommodation of the north - south movement. While they may accommodate some east -west traffic, their principal benefit is the continuation of the north -south flow between 1-10 and 1-15. 7. Property values will decline as a result of the CETAP Corridors Response: Property value is not an environmental topic that requires analysis under CEQA or NEPA. These concerns reflect socioeconomic rather than environmental values. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131, the economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Item 8 000097 Economic and social changes are only required to be evaluated if they result in a chain of events that lead to physical effects on the environment. Similarly, the federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40 C.F.R. 1508.8) require that economic and social effects be evaluated only when they are directly related to a significant physical effect on the environment. Potential impacts to property values are difficult to predict and measure, and are considered to be social and economic changes rather than direct physical effects to the environment. Therefore, in the context of the CETAP EIS/EIRs, changes to property values are not considered to be physical effects on the human environment. 8. Insufficient opportunity for public comment. Response: RCTC, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans, extended the public review period of the two CETAP Draft EIS/EIRs (originally scheduled between July 19 and September 20, 2002) by an additional two months, for a total of four months. In addition, RCTC conducted five additional hearings in December, 2002 and January, 2003. 9. Residents will be displaced and forced to relocate. Response: Potential displacement impacts were thoroughly discussed in the DEIS/DEIRs. All alternatives involve some displacements. While the bandwidth for each alternative provides information about residences that may be acquired for the right-of-way for the project, it is not until the Tier 2 level analysis is conducted and the proposed facility sited within the bandwidth that actual property acquisition needs can be determined. At that time, the RCTC and other participating transportation agencies will assess the fair market values of the properties to be acquired. The assessment will be completed in compliance with the procedures outlined in the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 (as amended). 10. The CETAP Corridors will impact rural lifestyles in Western Riverside County. Response: Future land use changes in established areas and in areas that are currently undeveloped will be guided by adopted General Plans as implemented by the local governing agencies, including the currently proposed General Plan for Riverside County upon its adoption. The proposed General Plan accommodates projected population growth by focusing development within areas that will be readily accessible, and that will minimize environmental and community impacts. The proposed General Plan includes broad areas that are designated for very low density in order to retain the rural qualities of portions of Riverside County. Item 8 00009 11. The CETAP Corridors will adversely impact schools and parks. Response: In the development of alternatives, analytical efforts focused on engineering and logistical issues with respect to public facilities/services. The initial alternatives were reviewed for conflicts with existing and proposed public facilities and services. Based on this review, alternatives were refined to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these facilities where possible. There are no schools or parks within the bandwidth of any of the WT alternatives, with the exception of Alternative H. There are three parks that are located in part within the bandwidth of HCLE Alternatives 4a, 4c, H1, and H3. 12. The air photos and maps in the DEIS/DEIRs are not current. Response: Western Riverside County is a dynamic and rapidly growing environment. In order to conduct the planning and environmental analyses for the CETAP corridors, as well as the other components of RCIP (General Plan and Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan), a comprehensive existing setting document was prepared for western Riverside County. The data were collected and assembled in the RCIP Existing Setting Report, completed in 1999. The RCIP Existing Setting Report was prepared using available air photos for western Riverside County dated 1998 and the County's 1998 GIS database. For the CETAP analyses, information in the Existing Setting Report was updated; for example, 2000 U.S. Census data were used as information became available, and 2000/2001 aerial imagery was used to update existing land uses within the bandwidths. The Notice of Preparation for the two internal CETAP Corridors was published in 2000, consistent with Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines that state that "(a)n EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published." Comments Received at the Public Hearings of December 2002/January 2003 As noted above, RCTC has conducted five public hearings during the last two months. Much of the testimony provided at these meetings reiterated comments made during the formal DEIS/DEIR public review period (i.e. substantial resident/property owner opposition to Alternatives 7a/7b in the WT Corridor, concerns regarding effects on rural communities, and concerns regarding the combined effects of staff recommended alternatives WT 7b and HCLE 5c on Menifee). In addition to these comments from the general public, at several meetings, representatives from the Cities of Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris, and San Jacinto stated their support for Alternative 1 b (and/or 1 a and H1) in the HCLE Corridor. 000099 Item 8 ATTACHMENT 11 Revised Proposal To Identify One Alternative For Each Corridor ("Getting to One") January 24, 2003 A. Decision Commitment 1 . The Federal Agencies commit to work toward agreement on a single alternative for each CETAP document. 2. The Federal Agencies have identified additional information/analyses needed for each Agency to be able to identify a single alternative for each CETAP document. 3. If, after the identified additional information/analyses have been provided, the Federal Agencies cannot agree on a single alternative for each corridor, the Agencies agree to elevate the decision to successively higher levels within each organization until consensus is reached. The Agencies will not request additional information. B. Alternatives to be Studied The Federal Agencies agree that the following alternatives be carried forward for additional analyses for each corridor. Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE): H1, H3, la, 1 b*, 5a, 5c, 6a, 6b Winchester to Temecula (WT): H, 7a, 7b * 1 b was retained in acknowledgment of the local preference. Alternatives to be eliminated from further consideration These appear to contain the most environmentally damaging qualities, and would thus not likely include the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) in the Tier 2 analyses. The Corps, USFWS, and EPA agree that these alternatives may be eliminated from further consideration. Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE): 4a, 4c, 4d, 5b, 5d, 5e Winchester to Temecula (WT): 1, 3, 5a, 5b The justification to remove these alternatives from further analysis was based on the alternative having both: Item 8 000100 • high impacts to waters relative to other alternatives in the corridor; and • high potential for causing habitat fragmentation in the form of new crossings of major habitat linkages, critical habitat, and/or proposed Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) criteria area. C. Information/Analysis Needs 1. The County will provide documented responses (letters) to the DEIS comment letters from each of the Federal Agencies indicating how each of the comments or recommendations will be addressed. This does not required complete agreement with the comments or recommendations, only that they be addressed as to resolution. If the County disagrees with a comment or recommendation, an explanation or alternative approach will be provided in the written response. Ideally, these issues will be discussed and agreed to during project development meetings before making a written response. 2. The Federal Agencies agree that the SAMP data and MSHCP information should be incorporated into the CETAP EIS analyses, and that the Tier 1 EIS's may serve as the 404(b)(1) off -site alternative analysis. (*Specific information and analyses are identified at the end of this document.) 3. The Federal Agencies agree that a limited planning level wetlands delineation and functional assessment, building on information provided in the DEIS, is needed for the portion of the study area not covered by the SAMP). 4. The Federal Agencies agreed that additional specific questions identified at the 1/22/03 meeting needs to be further refined but can be answered by using existing information in the DEIS, SAMP information and analyses, the MSHCP and other readily available information (such as the General Plan). 5. The Federal Agencies agree that a Quality Assurance process should be established to track resolution of the comments and other work to be completed. D. Schedule and Funding Commitments 1. The Federal Agencies recognize that providing the additional information and analyses will extend the CETAP effort by approximately 6-8 months past the identified Riverside County deadline of July 1, 2003, to approximately February 2004, and that Riverside cannot fund CETAP past July 1, 2003. Item 8 000101 2 EPA can provide to Riverside County up to $300,000 to cover the limited planning level wetlands delineation and functional assessment for that portion of the CETAP study area not covered by the SAMP. 3. FHWA will seek $500,000 in Environmental Streamlining funding to support completion of the CETAP EIS's, once the FY 2003 Federal Budget is passed. (This has already been discussed with FHWA HQ and should be doable assuming this year's budget is roughly equivalent to last year's.) 4. The Corps of Engineers (ERDC) has explored the possibility of conducting the SAMP work identified above and has determined that they are available to do that work, can complete it within approximately 3 months, can be contracted and tasked with the work within 1 to 2 months, and can do the work, including the analyses and reporting for approximately $150,000. This option is available to Riverside County at their discretion. 5. The Federal Agencies agree that a tentative schedule of publishing a focused Supplemental DEIS by August 2003 is doable assuming that the SAMP work is completed within the suggested time frame. 6. The Federal Agencies agree that a 45 -day public review period would be sufficient for the SDEIS. 7. The Federal Agencies agree that a Final EIS is doable by December 2003. 8. The Federal Agencies agree that a ROD is doable by February 2004. E. Agency Management Involvement 1. The Federal Agencies agree to continued management involvement at a decision -making level to facilitate quick resolution of issues. *Information needed for all retained alternatives Estimates should be expressed as linear miles and acres (where available) of waters, and classified as low, medium and high order streams. a) Inventory of waters within the bandwidths. Overlay alignments with planning level delineation. (SAMP) b) Inventory of waters, that may potentially be impacted hydrologically. Use planning level delineation and integrity assessment to focus on waters within the local drainage basin and downstream drainage basin. (SAMP) Item 8 0001 02 c) Inventory of waters both within and outside of the bandwidth that can reasonably be expected to be impacted from the projected growth that would occur in the vicinity of the alternative. Use integrity assessment to characterize the potential change in the degree of disturbance. (SAMP) d) Description of all proposed and listed Federally threatened and endangered species that may likely occur within and in reasonable proximity to the bandwidth of the alternative. Characterization of how a CETAP transportation facility may impact each species relative to its life history requirements and current distribution. (MSHCP and other existing sources of information) e) Inventory of all proposed and designated critical habitat areas that occur both within and in reasonable proximity to the bandwidth of the alternative. Characterize how the alternative may affect the critical habitat in terms of type of encroachment, acres of impact, and what it may mean to long term conservation of federally listed species. (MSHCP and other existing sources of information) Cumulative Impacts to Streams Linear miles and acres (where available) for low, medium and high order streams that will likely be modified. Use the information from the Surface Water Hydrology map 4.10.3 (existing conditions) and project the anticipated impacts based on the planned low, moderate and high density residential, commercial and industrial development zoning presented in the Planned Land Use map, 4.16.2. Use integrity assessment to characterize potential change in level of disturbance. (SAMP) Draft Supplemental EIS's Complete a Draft Supplemental EIS for each corridor incorporating the information and analysis covered above. Also, additional information and analysis that needs to be included in the DSEIS relate to: a) areas not included in the SAMP study, b) water quality and 303(d) listed waters, c) better articulation of cumulative and indirect impacts, and d) integration of the general plan amendment. Projected schedule for this effort, with agency support is a Draft SEIS by August 2003 with a ROD by February 2004. Item 8 000103 Draft 2/11/03 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT February 11, 2003 This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is entered into for the purposes of memorializing the understanding between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"), County of Riverside ("County"), California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, ("FHWA"), United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps"), and United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") (collectively the "Federal Agencies") regarding the completion of the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP"). RECITALS WHEREAS, because the County of Riverside is one of the largest and fastest growing counties in the United States, the County, local cities and others have embarked upon a comprehensive planning effort entitled the RCIP to address local environmental, transportation and land use needs with the goal of anticipating and shaping the pattern of growth within the County; and WHEREAS, the RCIP is composed of four coordinated plans consisting of a new County General Plan, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP") and the Special Area Management Plan ("SAMP"); and RVPUB\MO\647661 -1- Draft 2/11/03 WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Partnership Action Plan dated September 25, 2000, agreeing to work together on the RCIP in a "co-ordinated, cooperative and time sensitive mariner to the greatest extent possible"; and WHEREAS, CETAP is a multi -modal planning effort overseen by RCTC to identify future major transportation and communication corridors designed to relieve current traffic congestion and provide for the future transportation needs of the County and cities in Western Riverside County; and WHEREAS, CETAP is one of only seven priority projects initially selected for environmental streamlining pursuant to Executive Order 13274 on "Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews" dated October 31, 2002; and WHEREAS, RCTC, in conjunction with FHWA and Caltrans, has prepared and released for public review two Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Impact Reports ("Draft EIS/EIRs") analyzing the potential impacts of the proposed CETAP project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"); and WHEREAS, the EIS/EIRs analyze the preservation of right of way for two major transportation corridors, namely the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor and the Winchester to Temecula Corridor although the Parties have not yet selected a single alternative for each corridor that will be carried forward into Tier 2 environmental review documents; and WHEREAS, RCTC, the County and Caltrans are committed to resolving the severe transportation problems within the County; and WHEREAS, in light of the amount of taxpayers' dollars that have been spent to date for, and the great long term benefits of, the RCIP process, the Parties have committed to expeditiously work together towards agreement on a single alternative for both of the CETAP corridors. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. General Commitments A. The Federal Agencies commit to actively work with RCTC, the County and Caltrans towards agreement on a single alternative for each CETAP corridor.- RVPUB\MO\647661 -2- Draft 2/1 1 /03 B. The Parties agree to continued management involvement at a decision making level to facilitate fast, efficient resolution of any outstanding issues to satisfy Section 1.A. above. Section 2. CETAP Alternatives to be Eliminated From Further Consideration A. The Parties agree that the following alternatives may be eliminated from further consideration as a preferred alternative because they appear to contain the most environmentally damaging qualities and thus, would not likely include the LEDPA in the Tier 2 environmental impact analysis. These alternatives are as follows: 1. Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore: [TBD] 2. Winchester to Temecula: [TBD] B. The Parties further agree that the following alternatives may be eliminated from further consideration as a preferred alternative because of other considerations: 1. Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore: [TBD] 2. Winchester to Temecula: [TBD] Section 3. CETAP Alternatives to be Studied A. The Parties agree that the following alternatives will be carried forward for additional analyses for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor: [To Be Determined ("TBD")] Such analyses will be prepared as part of a Supplemental EIS/Recirculated EIR ("SEIS/REIR") and will contain the information and analysis referenced in Section 4 below. B. The Parties agree that only Alternatives [TBD] will be carried forward for the Winchester to Temecula corridor. The Parties further agree that existing information and analyses are currently available to enable the Parties to select a preferred alternative for the Winchester to Temecula corridor and that RCTC and FHWA will prepare a Final EIS/EIR without the preparation of a SEIS/REIR, pursuant to the schedule set forth in Section 5 below. The Parties further agree that RVPUB\MO\647661 -3- Draft 2/11/03 the Winchester to Temecula corridor Tier 1 EIS/EIR will serve as the Section 404(b)(1) offsite alternatives analysis. Section 4. Information/Analysis Requirements A. On or before February 28, 2003, RCTC will provide written responses to the comments and recommendations received from the Federal Agencies on both of the Draft EIS/EIRs. The Federal Agencies acknowledge that RCTC's initial responses do not require complete agreement with the Federal Agency comments or recommendations, only that they be addressed as to resolution. If RCTC disagrees with a comment or recommendation made by a Federal Agency, RCTC will provide an explanation or alternative approach in the written response. If appropriate, the Parties' representatives will discuss such responses prior to the above referenced due date. On or before March 14, 2003, the Federal Agencies will provide written comments, if any, on RCTC's responses. In the event of disagreement with any of RCTC's responses, the Federal Agencies shall state the precise reasons for such disagreement. The Parties' negotiating teams will immediately attempt to reach resolution on such issues. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement, the conflict resolution provisions set forth in Section 6 below will be invoked. B. The Parties agree that the information/analyses listed below will be assembled for each of the alternatives retained for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor to enable identification of a single alternative. The Parties further agree that the SAMP data and information from the MSHCP identified below, in addition to relevant information from the County General Plan, shall be incorporated into the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore SEIS/REIR. The Parties further agree that the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor Tier 1 EIS/EIR will serve as the Section 404(b)(1) offsite alternatives analysis. The Federal Agencies agree that except as specified in this section, no additional information or analysis will be requested prior to concurrence on a single alternative for this corridor. 1. SAMP and Santa Ana Watershed Data to be provided by the Army Corps a. Inventory of waters within the band widths. Alignments will be overlain with planning level delineation. RVPUB\MO\647661 -4- Draft 2/11/03 • b. Inventory of waters that may potentially be impacted hydrologically. Planning level delineation and integrity assessment will be used to focus on waters within the local and downstream drainage basins. c. Inventory of waters both within and outside of the bandwidth that can reasonably be expected to be impacted from the projected growth that would occur in the vicinity of the alternative. Integrity assessment will be used to characterize the potential change in the degree of disturbance. d. With regard to cumulative impacts to streams, identification through linear miles and acres (where available) of low, medium and high order streams that will likely be modified. Information from the Surface Water Hydrology map 4.10.3 (existing conditions) will be used to project the anticipated cumulative impacts to streams based on the planned low, moderate and high density residential, commercial and industrial development zoning presented in the Planned Land Use map 4.16.2. Integrity assessment will be used to characterize potential change in level of disturbance. e. The Parties agree that a limited planning level wetlands delineation and functional assessment that expands on the information already provided in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor Draft EIS/EIR is needed for the portion of the study area within the Santa Ana Watershed that is not covered by the SAMP. 2. MSHCP data and other existing information to be provided by RCTC a. A description will be provided of all proposed and listed federally threatened and endangered species that may likely occur within and in reasonable proximity to the bandwidth of the alternative. A characterization of how a CETAP transportation facility may impact each species relative to its life history requirements and current distribution will be provided. RVPUB\MO\647661 -5- Draft 2/11/03 b. Inventory of all proposed and designated critical habitat as defined in 50 CFR 424.02 that occur both within and in reasonable proximity to the bandwidth of the alternative. A characterization of how the alternative may affect the critical habitat in terms of type of encroachment, acres of impact, and what it may mean to long term conservation of federally listed species will be provided. C. The Parties agree that a quality assurance process will be established to track resolution of the Federal Agency comments and other work to be completed pursuant to this MOU. Such process will include a procedure for document tracking, schedule compliance and conflict resolution scheduling and progression. Section 5. Schedule and Funding Commitments A. The Federal Agencies recognize that preparation of the additional information and analysis referenced above will extend the CETAP effort by approximately six to eight months past the RCTC and County deadline of July 1, 2003. Any additional funding from RCTC or the County for the CETAP effort after July 1, 2003, shall be subject to approval by RCTC and/or the County. B. The Federal Agencies agree to provide future funding required for completion of the Tier 1 CETAP effort after July 1, 2003. The Federal Agencies may provide funding for this effort prior to July 1, 2003. The Federal Agencies will work together to obtain adequate funding for work required after July 1, 2003 including the following commitments: EPA will provide up to $300,000 to the County for the additional SAMP analysis set forth in Section 4; FHWA will seek $500,000 or more to fund the RCTC/County costs of CETAP after July 1, 2003. C. The Army Corps agrees to prepare the SAMP data identified in Section 4 above on or before May 1, 2003. [The Parties are continuing to work on the terms/conditions of this commitment.] D. RCTC agrees to take action on the Final EIR for the Winchester to Temecula corridor on or before July 15, 2003. FHWA agrees to take all actions necessary to allow issuance of a Record of Decision ("ROD") for the Final EIS on this corridor on or before August 15, 2003. [FHWA has not agreed to this language RVPUB\MO\647661 -6- Draft 2/11/03 and it will be discussed further.] The Parties shall work together to develop and agree upon intermediate milestones to allow RCTC and FHWA to successfully meet these dates. E. RCTC agrees to take action on the Final EIR for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor on or before February 1, 2004. FHWA agrees to take all actions necessary to allow issuance of a ROD for this corridor on or before February 28, 2004. [FHWA has not agreed to this language and it will be discussed further.] The Parties agree that a forty-five (45) day public review period is sufficient for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor SEIS/REIR. The Parties shall work together to develop and agree upon intermediate milestones to allow RCTC and FHWA to successfully meet these dates. Section6. Agency Management Involvement/Conflict Resolution [Note: The Parties are continuing to work on the terms/conditions of Section 6 and thus no changes have been made for this draft.] A. If the Parties' negotiating teams cannot reach agreement on any issue, including but not limited to a single alternative for each corridor, the Parties agree to elevate the decision to successively higher levels within each organization until consensus is reached. B. The Parties' negotiating teams will make every effort to expeditiously resolve outstanding issues. If resolution cannot be accomplished promptly during scheduled meetings and conference calls, the negotiating teams will immediately attempt to reach resolution in a subsequent meeting or conference call. Within one business day of the negotiating teams' failure to reach agreement on any outstanding issue, any Party may convene a meeting or conference call between the Regional Administrators for each of the Federal Agencies, appropriate RCTC, County and Caltrans management and one or more RCTC Commissioners and County Supervisors. C. If resolution does not occur within forty-eight hours of said meeting or conference call, this matter shall be further elevated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Caltrans District 8 Director and the Chairs of RCTC and the County Board of Supervisors, or their designees. Such individuals shall meet and confer as soon as possible but no later than five business days from notification of failure to reach resolution. RVPUB\MO\647661 -7- Draft 2/11/03 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding on the date first herein above written. RVPUB\MO\647661 -8- THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Draft 2/11/03 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: By: Chair COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS By: Chair of the Board of Supervisors By: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE By: By: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAYS ADMINISTRATION By: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY RVPUB\MO\647661 -9- Draft 2/11/03 By: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation RVPUB\MO\647661 -10- Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUB AGENDA ITEM N AND SUBJECT(S TS: NAME: ,'J)aT7 'DLiichO PP DATE: ;77- 0 -(. 3 lonveldA ADDRESS: -7 J ' 0 1 P rf +t '1 r V ? • TEL. NO: g0q'1J-7& - 3 yam, REPRESENTING: U/fC . ./ ib/lS Aegii OU 'L 1 J BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: + 1031, Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF n ' COMMENTS: Ce PUBLIC COMMENTS: rA"P AGENDA ITEM NO AND SUBJECT(S) NAME: (41E 42 F,..442s DATE: ,2 (iZ `C ADDRESS`%7' (2 l CQ j,/ ii24 TEL. NO: q 1751q-/ REPRESENTINt� -r]C) 1 j2 BUSINESS ADDRESS: 6 kbS MA-0,0 lei-7 TEL. NO: / 301-/1, 7 RCTC 7/99 g(U1�5� PUBLIC Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 4 NAME: 5 t-io Ct. DATE: o2/12, J 12,9 ADDRESS: ) 2-5-92 ii,,Z %i�`�`' TEL. NO: � -� -� 6, �,! REPRESENTING: //// UT A tvA, BUSINESS f(� /X ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: i Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: ./t PUBLIC COMMENTS: CaA► AGENDA ITEM NO(S) �r AND SUBJECT(S): !.. NAME: ADDRESS: cob? Cli,q/e� REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 DATE: TEL. NO: < ! )),dke TEL. NO: J 14' I Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: c' l � r) / M ADDRESS: %� 7'? I , ii' 1 T7 TEL. NO: ZTi 2 l� T 7 5J z REPRESENTING: l/ iG -?ic BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: PUBLIC Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ADDRESS: i elf` r . TEL. NO: ¶ - 111 • TIE 0 REPRESENTING: e '1 nU . J BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: �D `j I l•Q � Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITE (S) ANDSUBJET( ):. C� E.7/417 NAME: 3 C Vf cc,��i� ��, DATE: Zf jo 3 ADDRESS: J Z fh L„.; TEL. NO:/ ` o ) �'� - L 7 / REPRESENTING: 0l C -tor, a Oro ve BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO: (loi)2174-icoo RCTC 7/99 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: if/4, e(tir 693)41 DATE: 2• ' I 'Z ck_:3 ADDRESS: / J ff J M/4/ j / TEL. NO: ; fi▪ e, 74.747e - REPRESENTING: IV l c RIA 47 / BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 9/0 TEL. NO: 5,/'/!,ff Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC I. SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: v PUB + MMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO( AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: "S P �e Acn) lUc,loc" ADDRESS: DATE: chi t l a f 0 3 r �?d 1 gobS )-a Or, TEL. NO: IUq - Ct. 1 - 5 REPRESENTING: /Ay' BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: ti 31 QI Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC _ SUBJECT OF COMMENTS:( PUBLIC COMMENTS: P f,& R -7 -,CS AGENDA ITEM NO 8 C.E,7A AND SUBJECT(S): �lo PCB S'� is 1I l6 t4 (JA R -r -s NAME: 4 GCB At A -B6XO Lb DATE: f c, /O 3 ADDRESS:i 7556 T / P/1Cr 4! GUA 1 f TEL. NO: 9'09 (o 2 9 6L -9___/ - REPRESENTING: ffl BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: PUBLIC COMMENTS: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM NO( AND SUBJECT(S): SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: ,eS NAME: l (c';57.3-* �L DATE:..2--)2—&:3 - ADDRESS:A17,5 //Ae �i ;�+ TEL. NO:e1ft i 7i10 —7' 4I REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 a PUBLIC COMMENTS: TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM NO AND SUBJECT(S): SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: CE rAP NAME/I L./ffn bL2- A# -'rµ DATE: 2/1afr3 Goo /u, /I ,r2,,1 . ear r 1 e?G) ADDRESS: 5f , 4,/NO TEL. NO: 4964-2471 REPRESENTING: v✓/9/21)1 /A/67?MJ 4.09A40 e -do BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: (O 1 1 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM N AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ADDRESS: TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO c? (-0 $` - 33 DATE: 2 — CO Pii-) Ti oN RCTC 7/99 1 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: PRESENTATION - State Route 91 Improvement Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the presentation by Caltrans on State Route 91 Improvement Projects as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The purchase of the 91 Express Lanes by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in early -January has resulted in new opportunities to study mobility improvements along the SR 91 in both Riverside and Orange County. Prior to OCTA's purchase of the tollway, improvements to the freeway between 1-15 in Corona and 1-5 in Orange County were severely restricted due to non -competition clauses in the Express Lanes' franchise agreement with the state. The environment was clouded further by litigation brought by the County of Riverside and RCTC and a subsequent countersuit by the California Private Transportation Commission that made it impossible for Caltrans to even consider improvements to the freeway. Now that the tollway has been sold, the non -compete clauses have been eliminated, lawsuits have been dropped and Caltrans Districts 8 (Inland Empire) and 12 (Orange County) are working closely with RCTC and OCTA to develop a comprehensive plan of improvements for the SR 91 Corridor. The projects identified and outlined by this effort will likely comprise the plan of improvements that OCTA must adopt as part of the legislative requirements of Assembly Bill 1010 that enabled OCTA to purchase the 91 Express Lanes. The plan will also be considered by the SR 91 Orange -Riverside Advisory Committee that met for the first time on Friday, February 7th. Representative from Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 will present the preliminary results of that work for consideration by the Commission. After their presentation, Chairman Ron Roberts and other Commissioners will provide a brief summary of the Advisory Committee meeting. 000104 Item 10 "We keep California Moving!" L7rI&ww District 8 and District 12 SR -91 Alternatives Analysis It Fullerton Pacific Ocea n Not to Scale Anaheim 134 Yorba Linda Anahei m Riverside Moreno Valley SAN DIEGO COUNTY STATE ROUT E 91 A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS VICINIT Y MAP January 2003 Temecula N. San Bernardino County *Upstream bottlenecks combined with additional capacity provide improved LOS. However, backups from the weigh stations block right through lanes * High demand from Weir Cyn. Rd. , SR -90 & Lakeview Av. * Lane changes in the vicinity of SR -55/91 * Close proximity of Lakeview Interchange *Truch weaving through three lanes to S.B. SR -55 Orange w w w 0 0 o sled Yorba Linda Ra^a: Rc. * SR -71 converges with SR -91 * Second HOV lane added with no Ingress/Egress * Horizontal & Vertical alignment constraints * Severe dual -sided weaving conditions (traffic headed towards Express Lanes or SR -241) * Right lane is dropped * Geometric & operational deficiencies preve traffic from accessing downstream available capacity FRE-EW Anaheim * SR -55 merges with SR -91 * Right lane is dropped at Lakeview Avenue * Second lane is dropped at Imperial Highway Villa I Park nt +� * Right Auxiliary Lane is dropped at Coal Canyon Road * High traffic volumes from Gypsum Canyon' Road and Santa Ana Canyon, Road * SR -241 merges with SR -91 * Heavy traffic reerering. Freeway from Truck Scales merge on "hill grades at slow speed impacting generaVurpose lanes 0 0 range County * Heavy traffic volumes from 1-15 (North & South) converge with SR -91 * Weaving & merging condition complicated by close proximity of Main Street off -ramp 5fte'tielc load cac Svee: Right general-purpose lane is dropped at SR -71 * Second HOV lane is dropped ar Green River Drive. * Heavy downstream congestion forces traffic to exit at Green River off -ramp . ,\ Backup from off -ramp blocks right lane \ vq, e r str, Ltr * Backups from 1-15 (North & South) combined with heavy lane changes Corona * Higher demand with less available lanes than the Orange County segment Riverside bounty ST ATE ROUT E 91 CAUS ES OF CONGES TION COLORED SEGME NTS R EFL ECT IMPACTE D AR EAS CHOKE POINTS 01/2003 I a 'Placentia 1 :,;2, 9� :: hat:nuir a:. ,CL �_,_C_2ngetno73E-.4venue. ( -- Orange Placentia ' aarranP . ,u "alma AVON., Vi 1 la Park Bastancnur; Ruaa OrargelhorP c.venJe Li 17aura Avenue J Villa Park Fa Anaheim Ana heim Yorba Linda see . 61, Street (*) RUSH HOURS: reflect time period duirng which freeway or freeway segments typically experience significant delay due to high demand. c ,:ttertie!c Roan (*) RUSH HOURS: reflect time period duirng which freeway or freeway segments typically experience significant delay due to high demand. oi^ ctrl ' Stre: STATE ROUTE 91 A.M . RUSH HOURS ( *) 5:30 AMto9:30AM 6:30 AM to 9:00 AM 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM 2io She qtr Sirew,. c •; Corona_, 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Orange County Yorba Linda Yorba Linda Boulevard Project #5 - Rank 9 Intermediate access to and additional toll plaza to and and from SR -91 Express Lanes La Palma Avenue Villa Park , Kateila Ayen4e,.. Project #2 - Rank 1 Add 1 general purpose lane. Project #3 - Rank 2 Add 1 HOV 2+ lane and 1 general purpose lane or 2 general purpose lanes. Project #5 - Rank 9 Intermediate access to and additional toll plaza to and and from SR -91 Express Lanes Project #14 - Rank 15 Construct barrier separated WB Lakeview onramp for Southbound Lakeview traffic. Project #13 - Rank 14 Extend Auxiliary lane NB I SR -55 to WB SR-91/Tustin interchange connector. Project #15 - Rank 16 Construct Truck bypass lane @ SR-91/SR-55 Interchange. Project #6 - Rank 3 Add 2 Auxiliary lanes from SR -71 to SR -241. Project #7 - Rank 13 Add HOV Direct Connector from the SR -91 Express Lanes to the SR -241 Toll Road. Project #2 - Rank 1 Add 1 general purpose lane. Project #3 - Rank 2 Add 1 HOV 2+ lane and 1 general purpose lane or 2 general purpose lanes. Project #4 - Rank 6 Add a ANY to FWY Branch Connector from SR -91 to SR -71 Project #10 - Rank 5 Restripe beginning of 2nd HOV lane from Green River to SR -71 to add a lane using existing pavement Project #9 - Rank 4 Extend WB SR -91 Auxiliary Lane at Coal Canyon IC to the County line. Project #4 - Rank 6 Add barrier separated collector distributor or auxiliary lanes from SR -241 to SR -71. Project #1 -Rank 7 Add 1 HOV 2+ lane in each direction. Project #8 - Rank 11 1 Construct an elevated 4 -lane divided structure (Transitway) within the median of SR -91. Orange County Project #2 - Rank 1 Add 1 general purpose lane. Project 43 - Rank 2 Add 1 HOV 2+ lane and 1 general purpose lane or 2 general purpose lanes. Butterfield Road Project #4A - Rank 6 Intermediate term: Eastbound SR -91 from SR -241 to SR -71 Add 2 Auxiliary Lanes Other Projects: #11: Rank 8 Park & Ride and Rail Alternative. #16: Rank17 In the WB direction, provide "part-time" NOV usage during non -peak hours from Orange County line to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. (Pilot project) #17: Rank 10 New Inter -County Route (CETAP). Project #1 - Rank 7 Add 1 HOV 2+ lane In each direction. Project #8 - Rank 11 Construct an elevated 4 -lane divided structure (Transitway) within the median of SR -91 . o ds Project #2 - Rank 1 Add 1 general purpose lane. Project #3 - Rank 2 Add 1 HOV 2+ lane and 1 general purpose lane or 2 general purpose lanes . 6th. Street. ..... _. 5th Street 4th Street. . .... .. . 2r &$treet O • 8th street �4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET February 12, 2003 IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION SIGNING IS NOT REQUIRED NAME AGENCY / CITY OF RESIDENCE TELEPHONE # FAX # 6n AnII:s i .v.J2/- .g5_0 i57. -Y7 413 _AI v? rJr -,._Lie n rare 8-7 - 15 -3Z V1 V- b u' CC o-&(o0x/cu CILo-Cta ) c j �-H--) 6r (7,7) ,--1-e_../ Con r _, i 'bot-,01+n rst r, -7%4 - (..)S-0--1 `"191 (.0-'7 L2-7 5- .0-'71.;215 J --7:4.' t i •/ c f0 rr;. 6 rQ lice e 84? - 3 y `7 ‘l .1/14// ff,' IVO L .q/.1 !i/Lk r, ""-,1z---o--t_ 7fS - r5a / 1'/ CD 6111 Ociia-{4- e l/e V /S 9 - -(-- -- -41„91< kt 7 4Z:1- tcb / t qcR-279- 909.a77-a66Li cl.,,,/#/4,41 4--�� ... � <,v /`ckv cl or« - ,- '1 - clog k-37 � -714 �?If Fa �' A e_ 6 X 6L- M -) (c --7-D te-1 A 6P-6tie 1 9 0 (,,,e-9 0/92_ p 90w`7 / 7Air 1�fu R 6--t• 0 v E -K1 � sr 7 , 7_5704! 1 'rr- f A- V i Ck'l c, l ► D- -e (egg- Cr<� -71 .hi2Aris, /141-_ n 41---- 71.if ,-- . .G/• f /i C I1`' - C i/o Cx'1) 712 -2,-P7 �— _'/ l C 1- + . t24 (-7,411 �1 ,,-- 9ir? ) 7 5--�Y 5 1 C--1-10, ` --nnt\ 0-c-( e, G,E(:-.)ue Holier -6, Li q-3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET February 12, 2003 IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION SIGNING IS NOT REQUIRED NAME AGENCY / CITY OF RESIDENCE TELEPHONE # FAX # 3I III.% Poj'ekx le Jig -Z-t- is, C -f UvZ L afaq(3..5 -1 -731)- if A_ c nfK cl /3ni-7ctJU A rwct 4aRfa 909 6t" --79V 9 ft / . X09 65- 79.19 ILt (o�vx << 11 qe., OLio s-7 4 C .D em_ I /9-44 i L"1CiJ U 1C -70e I A G-reOUC erOct 6qg i 65 !e:Ay 'PA iskvvu vtC1Dvi$ (v0v/'Q _ 90`i 60' .SI, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET February 12, 2003 -- � NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE # ca- 7 2' D ..9A) 2A-----ec S lee 3,.% e.Z v' fr `3 �f�/�1 /� c�/14'e, $ ,1' ,e,,),, -g�le ."%fikoffp JG9'67*-061-S ZZ-' ,--,4. 5 - %5 S / DEG / 4Avl< r-M4Lt Ne2e,c) (909) ?3 -,-/9v ice— _ wry,n2in9 8e4-17)•7?z- g; / f co f- --C-..57:-/e)/z, 9 99.3-6/c29 a - g2 -.57 I q €0"-- 766-3%-cZIe 169-73�d-$� CokLoa�- fie A4:1let_ r nP lti-i uPi ea �i,roto5 Qj --7�'1S-sso (9I© 68t(- /WO Sitvvr �au.n ?c, G (thJ4 % /(—/41 L7 11 •1's-CdTi .. v/' 4 4 �f -• 4?/ 1 �-, o 04.75 1 Wt f c vus qq��T� 6 rq- eyy0 1:‹ 0_� G. -j ' \ se rf' '�,,.G'� 1 4i,_>) S1.6 3-- a i /giche: -- .l.-Nl ► (.1.o� CE- ell.) �C C)F. �\V De °I09. -c155--- L 0'9° /'/' • WS- -Ct 1, 1� -/• 4 > 90 -7% OCP al /' r 14 '' /f 9 q d - rJ � _rata() ,4- /4i )4 cS" i ► " /1/VO/V a, ' '` 6- 6-6 (4.---Tf5 C -714 Ram C. L o-- -,33-- 9 3 ,- atom M D2 L oD ���� 0-2 � / (74/0)398-3 E02_ (7 hh 760 -564 ala,5- it -SIG' I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL February 12, 2003 Present Absent Q a ,e'er a o D � , a a a ro _ a � a a a .a a _a a ,0 a a ,o J�� 0 .o a 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