HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 18, 2002 TAC•
•
•
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA*
10:00 A.M.
November 18, 2002
Banning City Hall
Civic Center, Large Conference Room
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA
0G2155
RECORDS
*By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Dick Cromwell, SunLine Transit
Louis Flores, Caltrans District 08
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Terry Hagen, City of Indio
Jerry Hanson, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Anne Palatino, RTA
John Licata, City of Corona
Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San
Jacinto, Canyon Lake
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Ray O' Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Joe Schenk, City of Norco
Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta
Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Cathy Bechtel, Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development
i
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
DATE: November 18, 2002
LOCATION: Banning City Hall
Civic Center, Large Conference Room
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. SELF -INTRODUCTION
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 21, 2002
PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on the agenda.
Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is
before the Committee.)
5. MEASURE "A" EXTENSION
6. CETAP UPDATE
7. 2004 RTP UPDATE
8. RCTC PROJECT MONITORING
- Tracking Sheets
- AB 1012
9. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM (Attachment)
10. NOVEMBER 13 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
11. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be December 16, 2002 in Riverside.)
•
•
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, October 21, 2002
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 a.m., at
Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue,
Riverside, California.
2. Self -Introductions
Members Present:
Others Present:
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Louis Flores, Caltrans
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Terry Hagen, City of Indio
Jerry Hanson, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta
John Licata, City of Corona
Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San
Jacinto, Canyon Lake
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Anne Palatino, RTA
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Joe Schenk, City of Norco
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
Dale West, WRCOG
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Ken Lobeck, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
October 21, 2002
Page 2
3. Approval of Minutes
M/S/C (Wassil/Harry) approve the minutes dated September 16, 2002
4. Public Comments
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto and Canyon Lake lead
congratulations to George Johnson, County of Riverside, on his recent
promotion.
5. MEASURE "A" REAUTHORIZATION
Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that the recent polls are indicating that the
Measure "A" reauthorization is likely to be passed but the percentage will
probably not be at the 78% approval received in 1988. However, it is not
certain what the outcome will be on November 5th.
6. STIP UPDATE
Shirley Medina indicated that at the October CTC meeting it was
announced that no additional projects or amendments will be heard until
the 2004 STIP because in July/August when the CTC released the fund
estimate, there wasn't a budget crisis. In the December/January
timeframe, CTC released a report which identified funding shortfalls for the
2002 STIP. She reminded the TAC that quite a number of projects had to
be delayed and that after the 2002 STIP was adopted in April, the CTC
reported the remaining capacity would be reserved for those projects
identified in the STIP as reserve.
Throughout the summer the CTC realized that capacity would run out and
that they would not be able to approve any more amendments even for
counties that identified projects as reserve. At the October 2-3 CTC
meeting, the 2002 STIP was fully programmed. All but five Riverside
County projects have been programmed in the 2002 STIP. The remaining
5 projects were scheduled to be "Noticed" at the October CTC meeting. A
few weeks prior to the October meeting, the CTC elected not to "Notice"
any additional projects. The 5 unprogrammed projects are two county
projects on De Frain Boulevard and Jefferson Road/bridge widening, the I-
10 Indian and Jefferson Interchanges, and Planning, Programming and
Monitoring funds.
She said that AB 3090 is a way to get projects started but lead agencies would
not be reimbursed until the year the project is programmed. Since the 5
projects would have to wait until the 2004 STIP for programming, capacity for
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
October 21, 2002
Page 3
programming would be in fiscal year 2007/08. She stated that this issue will go
to the RCTC Board at the December Commission meeting. Although the
projects were approved, they are not technically programmed in the STIP
and that RCTC will program them at the earliest opportunity.
Shirley Medina conveyed, too, that a TEA 21 cycle is coming up next
spring which will have new funding starting in fiscal year 2003/04 through
2008/09.
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside, asked when the $1M in PPM for RCTC will be
programmed. Ms. Medina stated that funding is available in 02/03 and
03/04 for CETAP and that additional funding will have to be programmed in
the 2004 STIP.
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley, asked if there is a possibility that
next spring when looking at TEA 21 allocations, those monies would be
reallocated to these projects. Ms. Medina said it is possible.
7. NEWPORT ROAD STIP REPROGRAMMING
Shirley Medina handed out a letter from Jim Venable, Third District
Supervisor. Juan Perez, County of Riverside, handed out a Submittal to
the Board of Supervisors from Supervisor Jim Venable. Mr. Perez referred
to the last page of the document and stated that he is looking to reprogram
funding from Newport Road which is identified as Patton Avenue. He
stated that reprogramming of funds from the Newport Road project to a
project along State Route 79 from Domenigoni Parkway to Hunter Road
would connect to the 6- lane section of 79 in Temecula. He stated that
there is an interest in expediting the Newport Road project. He said the
County is estimating the schedule for construction to be the latter part of
2008. He further stated that the County has an interest in delivering this
project sooner than that. Both projects were committed in the 2002 STIP
call. The Newport Road project was committed in the 2000 STIP call to be
funded out of the 2002 STIP.
Mr. Perez said the SR 79 project was funded in the 2002 STIP for about
$1.5M for environmental. He pointed out that the section from
Domenigoni to Keller is a Measure "A" project that RCTC has funded and
that the additional funding in the 2002 STIP was to continue the
environmental process to Hunter to clear the whole section for 6 lanes. He
said the County has identified what it would take to do a 4 lane project and
they have about $15M from the Measure available. He further stated that
the County is in the process of doing signals at about 4 locations at Auld,
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
October 21, 2002
Page 4
•
Hunter, Benton and Thompson that will do some widening. It was
determined that by shifting the $6M, a 4 -lane improvement from Hunter to
Domenigoni Parkway could be constructed. At this stage it is a high
priority for the County, and RCTC passed a resolution at a previous
Commission meeting identifying it as a high priority project without
committing any funding to it. He indicated that the County would like to
de -federalize Newport Road so it can be delivered earlier.
George Johnson, County of Riverside, stated that the above projects are
regionally significant projects and that if the County takes federal money
from the Newport Road project, construction can begin in 2004. If federal
money is kept for this project it couldn't begin construction until 2008 or
2009.
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, made a motion that Newport Road is
moved forward to support staff recommendation, condition upon
reasonable efforts to secure funding for Newport Road so it is consistent
with the original intention.
M/S/C (Wassil/Motlagh)
8. CETAP UPDATE
Juan Perez reminded the TAC that the CETAP comment period has been
extended to November 15. He reported that the County is going through a
general plan update and welcomes comments.
9. UPDATE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN STORAGE FACILITY AND IMPACT TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC, handed out a map of commercial and
Department of Energy (DOE) sites and Yucca Mountain in relation to the U.
S. railroad system, which is an excerpt from the final EIS illustrating the
potential rail networks that were looked at during the EIS. She said that
nuclear waste is stored around 131 sites in 31 states and that the Yucca
Mountain project seeks to develop a repository for the permanent disposal
of the nuclear waste in one location in Nevada. The final EIS was
published in February, 2002. The Department of Energy's designated
preferred alternative is to proceed with the Yucca Mountain site and to use
mostly rail, both nationally and in Nevada, to transport the spent nuclear
fuel and high level radioactive waste.
•
•
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
October 21, 2002
Page 5
Ms. Wiggins said that no rail routes have been designated as yet. In the
Southern California area, the rail routes would be the Union Pacific which
impacts Coachella Valley cities, Banning, Beaumont and may impact
Riverside. The transportation component of this effort is going to be
overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates how the
fuel is transported through a combination of safety and security
requirements, and the Department of Transportation will ultimately be
responsible in conjunction with the railroads in determining the final routes.
She said that permanent routes will not be designated until 4 to 5 years
prior to shipping. The current timeline for the Yucca Mountain site is
2010. The Department of Energy is working on submitting a license
application.
Tom Boyd asserted that there was brief discussion about money being
potentially available for safety along the rail corridors and asked if that has
been set aside. Ms. Wiggins responded that she had not heard about that
but that she will research and report information regarding this subject via
e-mail. Juan Perez suggested that a comment of the EIS from Eric Haley or
the Commission may be appropriate.
Stephanie Wiggins recommended a website where a 100 -page EIS may be
downloaded: www.ymp.gov
Louis Flores stated that regarding some grade separation projects in San
Bernardino County, it is much easier to get state funds to do these projects
rather than going through the federal process.
10. 2004 RTP UPDATE
Shirley Medina reported that SCAG was conducting workshops in Western
Riverside County, which was well attended, and in the Coachella Valley.
She said that SCAG is now requesting projects for inclusion in the 2004
RTP Update. Ms. Medina stated that she will be coordinating the project
submittal for the County to include projects approved through the Measure
"A" reauthorization, projects in the Coachella Valley TUMF and Western
Riverside County TUMF, and other regionally significant projects. She will
compile the lists and distribute to TAC members next month for review and
comment. Therefore, she requested that the agencies not respond to
SCAG regarding project information.
Craig Neustaedter commended Ms. Medina's efforts to get the input on the
network development done and called for support from all the TAC. He
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
October 21, 2002
Page 6
referenced the socioeconomic or demographic forecasting that goes on in
the RTP process and related it to the regional housing needs allocation plan
(RHNA). He stated that local jurisdictions have been provided the
opportunity to provide input for demographic forecasting for a 20 -year
horizon or the year 2030. He further stated that although they are allowed
to provide input, they would not be told what would be done with the
numbers until SCAG actually processes their plan. He said the City of
Moreno Valley is very interested and concerned that this process provide
for greater input on the part of local jurisdictions.
Shirley Medina conveyed that SCAG is not trying to make this a secret,
that they had a schedule laid out, going backwards from when the RTP
needs to be so that it doesn't lapse. She said that their 3 -month local
review process was cut into half to address issues raised by WRCOG and
SANBAG. An analysis was performed by experts in the field to fine-tune
the data that would be sent to each jurisdiction in the SCAG region. SCAG
sent this refined socio-economic data to planning directors. This
information will be sent directly back to SCAG.
In response to a request to explain advantages and disadvantages of the
RTP, Ms. Medina indicated that an advantage would that for a "Van Buren"
type of project, if it is not currently funded but you plan on applying for
federal funds in the next call for projects, it cannot be included in the
RTIP/FTIP unless it is included in the RTP. Mr. Neustaedter pointed out
that if a project is going to be in the RTIP, it should go in the RTP as
constrained and that not every project from the general plan should be
submitted. Only those projects that are likely to have federal funds should
be included in the RTP.
11. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, requested continuation of Item 8.
Craig Neustaedter reported that regarding the Reche Canyon/Reche Vista
project, City of Colton City Council last week approved funding for its
contribution to the Reche Canyon Road project. The City of Moreno Valley
has agendized it for November 19 and they are looking forward to hearing
from Riverside County and San Bernardino County to come up with their
matching shares so that they can proceed with the PSR.
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert, requested notification of the parking
situation at the new RCTC location at the Riverside County Regional
Complex. Shirley Medina said staff will provide a map of the parking
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
October 21, 2002
Page 7
areas. She said that RCTC is moving Thursday, October 24 and that
telephones will be operable at 3560 University Avenue until 5:00 pm,
Thursday, then switched to the new location on Friday, October 25.
Shirley Medina thanked the TAC for the quarterly project milestone reports
and said that she will be using the information to find out if the AB1012
balances will be obligated at the end of the year so no funds will be lost.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 AM. The next meeting is
scheduled for November 18, 2002, 10:00 AM, at Banning City Hall, 99
East Ramsey Street, Banning, California.
Respectfully submitted,
•
•
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 18, 2002
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning
Development
&
Policy
SUBJECT:
SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to discuss whether to establish a sub -committee to
review the policy on granting extensions to complete projects funded through the
Commission's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the October 28, 2002 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, several
questions were raised by Committee members on the policy to grant extensions to
complete projects funded under the Commission's SB 821 program. Some of the
issues raised included 1) what are the current policies on granting extensions? 2)
Which agency is the worst offender? 3) How often are extensions granted? 4)
Has anyone taken a recent look at revising the policy? 5) What would happen to
the funds allocated to a city/county if the funds were taken away? 6) Do we
allocate interest to the city/county while the funds are in reserve?
While the Committee did not wish to deny the extension request before them on
the agenda, they did express their concerns and felt the issue should be reviewed
again. Staff informed the Committee that it would take their concerns to the next
TAC meeting to develop a course of action. It may also be necessary, depending
on the outcome at the TAC meeting, to ask the Citizens' Advisory Committee
(CAC) for their input since in the past, the policy recommendations have come
forward from a joint TAC/CAC sub -committee.
Attached for your reference are the current SB 821 policies.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM
ADOPTED POLICIES
o The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until
the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local
agency forces begin construction of the project. (12/18/86)
o If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be
deleted from the programand the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB
821 Program. (12/18/86)
o A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30th if substantial progress
has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary
engineering. (12/18/86)
o Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered
(construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest earned on
the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account. (12/18/86)
***Following four policies pertain to multi -year projects***
o Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year
period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3. (9/2/87)
o Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding
in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved. (9/2/87)
o When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial
application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds, if requested by the
applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission. (9/2/87)
o When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial
application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or
resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission. (9/2/87)
o Any unused SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency
can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize
the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91)
o No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously included in
an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration.
(12/11/91)
o The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility
standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the
California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95)
RCTC: 4/12/95