Loading...
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