HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 6, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee75672
•
•
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT
MEETING AGENDA*
10:00 A.M.
February 6, 2006
Banning City Hall, Civic Center,
Large Conference Room,
99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA.
Records
*By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
RTA
Ahmad Ansari, City of Perris
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Duane Burk, City of Banning
City of Calimesa
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Caltrans .District 8
Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit
Amir Modarressi, City of Indio
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake,
(Perris) and San Jacinto
Les Nelson, PVVTA
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Amad Qattan, City of Corona
Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore
Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG
Bill Thompson, City of Norco
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Anne Mayer, Programming/Administration Director
11.36.02
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
DATE: February 6, 2006
LOCATION: Banning City Hall, Civic Center,
Large Conference Room,
99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if
you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County
Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least.48 hours prior to meeting
time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility
at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. SELF -INTRODUCTION
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 9, 2006
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda.
Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is
before the Committee.)
5. 2006 STIP SUBMITTAL (Attachment)
• TE PROJECT PROGRAMMING
6. TAC SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON PROJECT DELIVERY ISSUES
7. 2006 FTIP UPDATE
8. JANUARY 11, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
February 6, 2006
Page 2
9. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
10. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be March 20, 2006, 10:00 A.M. in
Riverside.)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, January 9, 2006
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, 4080 Lemon Street, 'Riverside,
CA.
Self -Introductions
Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Mike McCoy, RTA
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake,
(Perris) and San Jacinto
Russ Napier, City of Murrieta
Nader Naquib, Ca!trans District 8
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Amad Qattan, City of Corona
Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa
Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore
Randy Viegas, City of Rancho Mirage
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Others Present:
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Eric Haley, RCTC
Ken Lobeck, RCTC
Anne Mayer, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 9, 2006
Page 2
3. Approval of Minutes
No objections.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside, was unanimously nominated Chairman.
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs, was unanimously nominated Vice-
Chairman.
6. RCTC ORGANIZATION RESTRUCTURE
Anne Mayer, RCTC, provided RCTC's interim organization chart effective
January 3 through June 30, 2006 and stated that Marilyn Williams, Director
of Regional Programs, and Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, retired
effective the end of 2005. She summarized the changes, e.g., 3 open
Program Manager positions - Right of Way Program Manager, Capital
Projects Program Manager and an Innovative Financing Program Manager as
well as 3 open Staff Analyst positions - Government Relations Staff Analyst,
Rail Department Staff Analyst and Transit Staff Analyst.
7. 2006 STIP
Eric Haley, RCTC, offered a positive outlook regarding Proposition 42 when
the state budget is released January 10. He is not as encouraged
concerning Indian gaming, and the bond package is also variable. He further
stated that Riverside County and the Inland Empire as a whole should do
very well under the Governor's new infrastructure bond proposal.
Shirley Medina, RCTC, highlighted the removal of the local arterial projects
because they tend to get delayed in the STIP when there is a financial issue
at the state level. The STIP funds on the local arterial projects will be
replaced with federal funds, (Surface Transportation Program funding), but
there is a required 11 %2 % match. Taking these projects out of the STIP will
require less (in terms of process and paperwork) from the local agencies.
Regarding #4, 5, and 6 of the STIP staff report, some of the numbers will be
revised. Ms. Medina summarized the STIP item indicating that the California
•
•
"
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g
J a n u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 6
P a g e 3
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n m a y r e v i s e t h e p r o g r a m m i n g o f p r o j e c t s .
C h a n g e s m a d e t o R i v e r s i d e ' s S T I P s u b m i t t a l w i l l b e b r o u g h t b a c k t o t h e
C o m m i s s i o n a n d T A C .
P R O J E C T D E L I V E R Y
A n n e M a y e r r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e C T C h a s i m p o s e d d e l i v e r y m o n i t o r i n g o n a l l
p r o j e c t s g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e C T C f o r f u n d i n g a l l o c a t i o n s . T h e y e x p e c t t h a t i f
t h e f u n d s a r e a l l o c a t e d t o a p r o j e c t , t h e f u n d s a r e s p e n t . A 4 - m o n t h w a r n i n g
r e p o r t i s i n e f f e c t w h e r e b y i f t h e f u n d s a r e n o t s p e n t w i t h i n t h e 4 m o n t h s ,
r e p o r t s w i l l b e g e n e r a t e d r e g a r d i n g p r o g r e s s . S h e s t r e s s e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
a c c u r a c y r e g a r d i n g p r o g r a m m i n g a n d s c h e d u l i n g .
9 . C O N G E S T I O N M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M U P D A T E
S h i r l e y M e d i n a i n t r o d u c e d G e o r g i e n a V i v i a n , V R P A T e c h n o l o g i e s , w h o
u p d a t e d t h e T A C r e g a r d i n g p e a k h o u r v o l u m e t r a f f i c c o u n t s i n t h e C o a c h e l l a
V a l l e y a s r e q u e s t e d i n a p r e v i o u s T A C m e e t i n g . S h e s a i d t h e c o u n t s w e r e
r e v i e w e d a n d t h a t C V A G c o u n t s w e r e u s e d . O t h e r q u e s t i o n s f o c u s e d o n I -
1 5 a n d 1 - 2 1 5 a n d M s . V i v i a n p r o v i d e d a n o v e r v i e w o f t h e m a p s a t t a c h e d t o
t h e s t a f f r e p o r t .
M / S / C ( P e r e z / Q a t t a n ) t o r e q u e s t a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s w i t h C a l t r a n s d a t a
a n d A l e s s a n d r o d a t a , 1 - 1 5 - 1 - 2 1 5 c o r r i d o r , f r o m S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y
t o S a n D i e g o a n d r e t u r n t o t h e T A C w i t h u p d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n .
1 0 . R T I P / F T I P U P D A T E
K e n L o b e c k , R O T C , s a i d t h e 2 0 0 4 R T I P w i l l e x p i r e i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 6 . A f i n a l
a m e n d m e n t t o t h e 2 0 0 4 T I P w i l l b e d o n e a b o u t F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 6 . H e i n d i c a t e d
t h a t h e w i l l u p d a t e H B R p r o j e c t s , a d d i n g t h e n e w S A F E T E A - L U e a r m a r k s
( e . g . R i v e r s i d e g r a d e s e p a r a t i o n , C E T A P p r o j e c t , 5 3 1 0 u p d a t e s , e t c . ) H e
s t a t e d t h a t i t w i l l t a k e 3 - 4 m o n t h s f o r t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h i s a m e n d m e n t .
R e g a r d i n g t h e 2 0 0 6 u p d a t e , h e i s f i n i s h i n g t h e u p d a t e s a n d s e n d i n g o u t T I P
s h e e t s .
1 1 . C A L T R A N S L O C A L A S S I S T A N C E U P D A T E
N a d e r N a q u i b , C a l t r a n s , i n d i c a t e d t h a t W e n d y L i ' s p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n v a c a n t
s i n c e m i d - D e c e m b e r a n d t h a t i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e j o b w i l l b e f i l l e d b y m i d -
F e b r u a r y .
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 9, 2006
Page 4
He stated that Caltrans met with local agencies to review projects that are in
danger of lapsing. He further stated that 95% of the projects will be safe
once the agencies submit progress or a final invoice on the projects. In the
second round, Caltrans still has about 45 projects to review. FHWA will be
at Caltrans the 17t of January. He stressed that agencies must submit a
progress or final invoice to indicate that the projects have not stopped.
Suggestions were made to reconvene the Project Delivery Subcommittee and
Ms. Medina indicated that she will schedule it.
12. 2005/06 OBLIGATION PLAN
Shirley Medina stated that information provided on the FY 2005/06
Obligation Plan was obtained from the July milestone report that indicated
which quarter of the fiscal year 2005/06 the project will move forward. She
further stated that projects listed in the first quarter should have been
obligated by December 30 and if not, let Ms. Medina know. The obligation
plan packages should be submitted within the next 60 days for those
projects that were listed under the second quarter:
13. DECEMBER 14 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS
The December 22, 2005 Commission Connection was provided.
13. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no other announcements.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 A.M. The next meeting is .
scheduled for February 6 2006, 10:00 A.M., Banning City. Hall, Civic Center,
Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
•
"
" A G E N D A I T E M 5
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y 2 0 0 6 S T I P S U B M I T T A L S U M M A R Y
( s t o w s )
P R O J E C T S C S / R R E N T L Y P R O G R A M M E D
L �� L . _ _
J .
- J _ _ L _
P r o e c t T o t a l s b y M a c e Y e a r
P r o j e c t T o t a l s C o m , o n e n t
i
A g e n c y , P r o j e c t
T o t a l
P r i o r
0 6 . 0 7
0 7 . 0 8
0 8 - 0 9
0 9 - 1 0
1 0 - 1 1
R / W
C o n s t
E 8 . P
P S B E
r o w s u p
c o n s u p
C o m m e n t s
P R I O R C O M M I T M E N T S N O T P A R T O F 2 0 0 6 S T I P T A R G E T
- -
C a l t r a n s , G A R V E E d e b t ( R t 2 1 5 , E l C e r r i t o - R t 6 0 I 9 1 0 R I P , 8 5 % )
1 5 6 , 7 0 7
4 3 , 6 5 4
2 2 . 6 1 1
2 2 , 6 1 0
2 2 , 6 1 0
2 2 , 6 1 1
2 2 , 6 1 1
1 5 6 , 7 0 7
u n c h a n g e d
C a l t r a n s , 1 . 1 0 J e f f e r s o n S t i n t e r c h a n g e , w i d e n O C
1 5 0
4 5 0
1 5 0
1 5 0
M o v e f r o m 0 5 / 0 8 1 0 0 8 / 0 7
C a l t r a n s , 1 - 1 0 I n d i a n A v i n t e r c h a n g e , w i d e n O C , r a m p s
1 5 0
4 5 4
1 5 0
1 5 0
M o v e f r o m 0 5 1 0 8 t o 0 8 / 0 7
R C T C , A B 3 0 9 0 C a s h R e i m b u r s e m e n t
1 6 6
1 6 6
1 6 6
u n c h a n g e d
R C T C , A B 3 0 9 0 C a s h R e i m b u r s e m e n t -
2 6 . 6 2 5
2 6 , 6 2 5
2 6 , 6 2 5
U n c h a n g e d
O
6 8 7
6 2 7
A l l o c a t i o n d e n t e d . D e l e t e p r o j e c t , f u n d e d w i t h R S T P
R C T C , R t 9 1 , A d a m s S t - R t 6 0 / 2 1 5 , H O V L a n e s
1 3 , 0 7 0
1 3 , 0 7 0
3 , 2 1 3
9 , 8 5 7
9 , 9 7 0
3 , 1 0 0
M o v e P s a E t o M N s u p p o r t a n d R N V c a p i t a l
0
4 0 0
D e l e t e p r o j e c t r e p l a c e f u n d s w i t h R S T P
R C T C G A R V E E d e t s e r v i c e f o r 2 0 1 1 - 1 2
2 2 , 6 1 1
2 2 , 6 1 1
U n c h a n g e d
T o t a l N o n S T I P T a r g e t P r o g r a m m i n g
2 1 9 , 4 7 9
1
5 2 , 7 4 9
3 2 . 6 3 3
2 2 , 6 1 0
2 2 , 6 1 1
4 5 , 2 2 2 1
9 , 9 7 0
1 8 3 , 4 9 8
0
3 0 0
3 , 1 0 0
O f l
I I N O N - T E
S U B J E C T T O R E P R O G R A M M I N G I N 2 0 0 6 S T I P
C a l t r a n s , I - 1 0 / J e f f e r s o n S t I n t e r c h a n g e , w i d e n O C
1 0 , 5 6 0
1 0 . 5 6 0
8 , 8 4 0
1 , 7 2 0
u n c h a n g e d
C a l t r a n s , 1 . 1 0 / R a m o n R d / B o b H o p e I C
1 9 , 0 2 2
1 9 , 0 2 2
1 9 , 0 2 2
1 6 , 6 2 8
2 , 3 9 4
M o v e f r o m 0 8 7 0 7 t o 0 7 / 0 8
C a l t r a n s , 1 . 1 0 I n d i a n A v , w i d e n O C , r a m p s
1 3 , 1 1 2
1 3 , 1 1 2
1 1 , 5 2 0
1 , 5 9 2
u n c h a n g e d
C a l t r a n s , 1 . 1 5 C a l i f O a k s / K a l m l a I C I m p r o v s
5 , 1 4 2
1 0 0
5 . 0 4 2
4 , 1 4 2
1 0 0
u n c h a n g e d
R C T C A B 3 0 9 0 R e p l a c e m e n t , 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J o t C o n n e c t o r s
3 , 8 8 9
3 - 8 8 4
3 , 8 8 9
3 , 8 8 9
M o v e f r o m O M B t o D 8 1 1 0
8 1 y 1 p B - , k B v e l i n - B l v d
O
8 4 4
D e l e t e p r o j e c t
B l y t h e , U S 9 5 I n t a k e B l v d
1 , 8 7 5
1 , 8 7 5
1 , 8 7 5
I n c r e a s e R I P f r o m $ 1 0 3 1 t o $ 1 8 7 5
0
4 ; 3 8 5
D e l e t e p r o j e c t . .
0
4 5 5 4
D e l e t e p r o j e c t
0
2 7
D e l e t e p r o j e c t
0
3 4 8 4
D e b t e p r o j e c t
0
1 . 9 6 7
D e l e t e p r o j e c t
M u r d e t a , R t 1 5 . C a l i f O a k s / K a l m i e i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v s
2 , 2 2 4
2 , 2 2 4
2 , 2 2 4
u n c h a n g e d .
0
3 : 4 6 5
D e l e t e p r o j e c t , m o v e f u n d s t o g i N a n B u r e n I C
R i v e r s i d e , S R 9 1 V a n B u r e n I C
3 , 4 6 5
3 . 4 6 5
3 , 4 6 5
F u n d s f r o m V a n B u r e n a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t
0
2 ; 0 4 0
D e b t e p r o j e c t
0
8 4 0
D e b a t e p r o j e c t
R i v e r s i d e C o , I n d i a n A v I C , w i d e n O C , r a m p s
2 , 0 0 0
2 , 0 0 0
2 , 0 0 0
u n c h a n g e d
R C T C A B 3 0 9 0 R e p l a c e m e n t , 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J c t C o n n e c t o r s
3 , 4 6 0
3 - 4 6 0
3 , 4 6 0
3 , 4 6 0
M o v e f r o m 0 7 1 0 8 1 0 0 8 / 1 0 -
O
3 0 8
O g g
4 2 4
D e l e t e p r o j e c t
R C T C , P P M
1 , 1 0 5
1 0 5
5 0 0
5 0 0
1 , 1 0 5
U n c h a n g e d ' " ` _ _ _ " "
R C T C , R t 9 1 , A d a m s S t - R t 6 0 / 2 1 5 , H O V L a n e s ( R I P f r o m d e l e t e d p r o j e c t
1 6 , 8 8 2
1 0 , 0 3 0
6 , 8 5 2
1 0 , 0 3 0
6 , 8 5 2
R e p r o g r a m d e l e t e d p r o j e c t s t o S R 0 1 / H 0 V l a n e p r o j e c t
T o t a l N o n - T E S u b a c t t o R e r r o e r a m m i n "
8 2 , 7 3 6
7 , 8 9 4
6 0 , 1 4 1
5 0 0
1 4 , 2 0 1
0 1
1 7 , 7 1 9
5 8 , 3 1 1
0
1 0 0
0
5 , 7 0 6
1
2 0 0 6 S T I P N E W C A P A C I T Y P R O J E C T P R O G R A M M I N G
-
R C T C , R t 9 1 , A d a m s S t - R t 6 0 / 2 1 5 , N O V L a n e s
9 2 , 6 1 5
9 2 , 6 1 5
9 2 , 6 1 5
2 0 0 0 S T I P N e w C a p a c i t y p r o g r a m m i n g f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n
C a l t r a n s , 1 - 1 0 B o b H o p e / R a m o n R d I C
2 4 . 5 0 8
2 4 , 5 0 8
2 4 , 5 0 8
A d e l R I P t o c o v e r r e c e n t c o a t i n c r e a s e
C a l t r a n s , 1 . 1 0 D a t e P a l m I C -
8 , 5 4 2
8 , 5 4 2
8 , 5 4 2
N e w S T I P p r o j e c t
C a l t r a n s , 1 . 1 0 P a l m D r i v e / G e n e A u t r y I C
8 . 0 8 7
8 , 0 8 7
8 . 0 8 7
N e w S T I P p r o j e c t
P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e , C o m m u t e r R a i l E x t e n s i o n f r o m R i v e r s i d e t o P e r r i s
3 0 , 0 0 0
3 0 , 0 0 0
3 0 , 0 0 0
N e w S T I P p r o j e c t
R C T C , P l a n n i n g , P r o g r a m m i n g a n d M o n i t o r i n g .
3 , 3 4 2
1 , 8 4 2
1 , 0 0 0
5 0 0
3 , 3 4 2
-
A d e l R I P f o r P P M
T o t a l N e w C a " a c t P r o " r a m m i n "
1 6 7 , 0 9 4
8 4 2
2 5 , 5 0 8
4 7 , 1 2 9
9 2 , 5 1 5
0
0 4 1 * t 4 4 # 1
f f
0
0
0
0 f l
I
I
R C T C , T E R e s e r v e
1 8 . 8 1 5
5 , 7 0 5
4 , 0 9 1
3 , 2 4 5
3 , 2 3 0
2 , 5 4 4
1 8 , 8 1 5
T E p r o j e c t s w i l l b e b p r o g r e m m e d t h r o u g h S T I P A m e n d .
- T o t a l T E
1 8 , 8 1 5
���%
��1
T o t a l 2 0 0 6 R I P o n l y
$ 4 ,
T o t a l 2 0 0 6 R I P I n c l u d i n g T E -
$ 4 8 8 8 8 , 1 2 4 1 2 4
1
��
I
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006 STIP SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
The summary identifies projects that will be carried over into the 2006 STIP.
Projects that are proposed for deletion are in "strike -out'. Projects with
programming changes are bolded. A comment field is provided to explain the
status of each project.
We are proposing to delete several local arterial projects and focus our RIP
funding on state highway system improvements. RCTC has approved to replace
the RIP funds on the local arterials with RSTP and CMAQ funding.
Prior Commitments Not Part of 2006 STIP Target —
This section includes only those projects that are being carried over to the 2006
STIP, with the exception of the two projects proposed for deletion (Desert Hot
Springs, Pierson Blvd and Rideshare).
The SR 91 HOV project is currently programmed in the 2004 STIP for design.
Our 2006 STIP submittal includes moving the $13.07 million, currently
programmed in the PS&E phase, to the right-of-way phase.
Non-TE Subject to Reprogramming in 2006 STIP —
This section includes the AB 3090 Replacement projects "placeholders". We
have identified the replacement project for both AB 3090 agreements as the
60/215 East Junction Connector project.
We are proposing to reprogram funds from the Van Buren Boulevard local
arterial project to the SR 91Nan Buren Interchange improvement project. The
SR 91 Van Buren interchange project is new to the STIP, but is listed in this
section to show the funds being moved from the local arterial to the state
highway on Van Buren Boulevard.
The deletion of local arterial projects frees up $16.882 million. We are proposing
to reprogram these funds to the 91 HOV lane project.
2006 STIP New Capacity Project Programming —
This section includes existing and "new" projects to the STIP. The existing
projects listed in this section are being proposed for additional funding from our
new capacity.
Existing projects —
We are proposing additional RIP funds on the 91 HOV land project that
will complete funding for the right-of-way and construction phases. We
are also adding funding to the 1-10 Bob Hope/Ramon Road Interchange as
this project has experienced a sharp increase in right-of-way and
construction costs. Additional funding for Planning, Programming and
Monitoring are also proposed. .
New STIP projects —
We are proposing to add three new STIP projects. The first is the Perris
Valley Line, commuter rail extension project.,This project will extend the
current Metrolink service that ends in the city of Riverside easterly into .the
city of Perris. This project has received "new starts" federal funding in
addition to other federal and local funds. The other two new projects are
interchange improvement projects along Interstate 10 in the Coachella
Valley. These projects will be environmentally cleared in March 2006 and
are scheduled for construction in early 2008..
TE Reserve —
We are proposing to program our TE funds as a "reserve" and will amend the
STIP for each TE project as they become ready for allocation. RCTC completed
a call for projects for TE funding and approved a total of 18 projects. These
projects are currently being reviewed by Ca!trans Headquarters for eligibility.
"
A G E N D A I T E M 6
"
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e i s n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 6 .
"
Summary Project Delivery Subcommittee Meeting
The Project Delivery Subcommittee met on January 31, 2006. The purpose of
the meeting was to address concerns regarding project delivery for highway and
local assistance projects. The meeting was attended by the following persons:
Bill Mosby, Caltrans
Craig Neustaedter, city of Moreno Valley
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Bill Hughes, city of Temecula
Anne Mayer, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
The group discussed and suggested short and long-term improvements that can
be implemented among the local agencies, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. Some
of these can be implemented relatively simply and others would require
additional coordination with Caltrans District 08, Caltrans Headquarters, and
FHWA. These improvements are:
Improvements In Process:
• Accessibility of Project Tracking Database (via Internet)
• Caltrans Local Assistance Staff Retention (elevating staff levels)
• Self -Help Counties "Executive Partnership" formed to discuss and
recommend improvements to statewide project delivery issues
Short-term improvements (6 to 12 months)
• Development of Conflict Resolutions (MOUs)
• Ensuring Caltrans is adequately staffed to handle the high volume of
projects that Riverside County will be undertaking (pay for additional staff
at Caltrans?)
• Development of a "pre -qualified" consultant listing
• Regular project meetings between local agency and Caltrans (RCTC staff
may serve as "ombudsman")
Lonq-term Improvements (1 —2 years)
• NEPA Delegation (NPRM approx. May 2006)
• Grandfathering of projects (don't add new requirements after project has
been submitted)
• End chase of "perfect" environmental document
It was also discussed that implementation of the Riverside County MSHCP
should significantly reduce the amount of time preparing and approving the
environmental document for state highway projects.
The subcommittee did not take any action on the above items. The
subcommittee is seeking feedback on the suggested improvements and would
like the TAC to provide any additional input or ideas on improving project
delivery.
"
"
A G E N D A I T E M 7
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e i s n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 7 .
r
AGENDA ITEM 8
• A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 8.
•
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman
Kelly Seyarto
City of Murrieta
Vice Chairman
Jeff Stone
County of Riverside
Marion Ashley
County of Riverside
William Batey
City of Moreno Valley
Dom Betro
City of Riverside
i
Bob Buster
County of Riverside
Larry Dressel
City of Beaumont
Frank Hall
City of Norco
Robin Lowe
City of Hemet
John Machisic
City of Banning
Eugene Montanez
City of Corona
Shenna Moqeet
City of Calimesa
Robert Schiffner
City of Lake Elsinore
Dale Stubblefield
City of San Jacinto
John Tavaglione
County of Riverside
Chuck Washington
City of Temecula
Roy Wilson
County of Riverside
Mark Yarbiough
City of Perris
John 7.aitz
City of Canyon Lake
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Tom Mullen
Interim Executive Director
Joseph Richards
Deputy Executive Director
Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority
January 24, 2006
Mr. Rick Bishop, Executive Director
Western Riverside County Council of Governments
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
RE: MSHCP Component of TUMF — Freeway Interchanges.
Dear Rick:
WRCOG's proposed TUMF update includes a five percent set aside for MSHCP funding as mitigation for
improvements financed by the fee. As proposed, the MSHCP set aside formula takes into account the construction
of freeway interchanges funded by TUMF funds. It is our understanding there is a question regarding the validity
of including interchanges in the calculation of the set aside, given that CALTRANS, which maintains and operates
freeways, is a Permittee, and responsible for a specific mitigation program under the Plan. In other words, by
including interchanges, is there a "double counting" of mitigation.
The MSHCP identifies three transportation related funding sources:
1. One hundred and twenty-one million dollars from Measure A.
2. Two hundred and fifty million dollars from new roads, a portion of which is to be generated through the
TUMF program.
3. To mitigate for state freeway improvements, CALTRANS, under the MSHCP Implementation Agreement, is
obligated to acquire 3,000 acres (estimated at 36 million dollars) and provide an endowment for the ongoing
management of the conserved land (estimated at 9.6 million dollars). The applicable freeways are illustrated
and described in the MSHCP.
According to Section 7 of the Plan, state freeways, including interchanges that connect to highways and local
roads, are "covered activities" and improvements to these facilities are mitigated by the CALTRANS conservation
and management commitment. Therefore, the MSHCP portion the TUMF update should not include
mitigation for interchanges. We believe, however, there may be instances when TUMF funds are used to expand
an interchange beyond the original planned configuration. In those cases, the 5% set aside would be appropriate.
Let me close by stating plainly that the RCA will never "double dip." On the other hand, the agency should receive
all funds intended for the implementation of the MSHCP.
I hope this letter addresses the issue at hand, and please feel free to contact Joe Richards or myself if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
om Mull
Executive Director (Interim)
cc: Michelle Ouellette
408o Lemon Street, 12tl' Floor, Riverside, California, 92501 • P.O. Box 1605, Riverside, California 9z5o2-1605
Phone: (951) 955-970o • Fax: (951) 955-8873 •14'ww.wrc-remorg