Loading...
06 June 19, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee77098 i TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTE MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. June 19, 2006 Records Banning City Hall, Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA *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 Duane Burk, City of Banning City of Calimesa Bill Gallegos, City of Coachella 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 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 Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe 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 Sean Yeung, Ca!trans District 8 Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive 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: June 19, 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 (9511 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 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. FFY 2005/06 OBLIGATION PLAN UPDATE (Attachment) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) REGARDING PROJECT DELIVERY AND ISSUES RESOLUTION (Attachment) 7. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT (Verbal Presentation) 8. 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE (Attachment) 6. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 19, 2006 Page 2 9. REGIONAL TUMF PROJECT STATUS UPDATE (VerbalPresentation) 10. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.(RTIP) PROGRAMMING CHANGES (Attachment) 11. PM 2.5 PROJECT LEVEL CONFORMITY AND HOT SPOT ANALYSES SUMMARY (Attachment) 12. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS (Attachment) 13. JUNE 14, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS (Verbal Presentation) 14. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be July 17, 2006 10:00 A.M. in Riverside.) • MINUTES • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, May 15, 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 the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Ahmad Ansari, city of Perris Dave Barakian, city of Palm Springs Ed Basubas, city of Lake Elsinore Tom Boyd, city of Riverside Mike Gow, city of Hemet Murk Greenwood, city of Palm Desert Leslie Grosjean, city of Cathedral City Bruce Harry, city of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, city of Temecula George Johnson, county of Riverside Eldon Lee, city of Coachella Eunice Lovi, SunLine Mike McCoy, Riverside Transit Agency Habib Motlagh, cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, & San Jacinto Amir Modarressi, city of Indio Russ Napier, city of Murrieta Craig Neustaedter, city of Moreno Valley Dan Patneaude,. city of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, county of Riverside Amad Qattan, city of Corona Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Tim Wassil, city of Indian Wells John Wilder, city of Beaumont Sean Yeung, Ca[trans Mike Ainsworth, SCAG Fred Alamolhoda, Municipal Engineering Resources Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 2 Shirley Gooding, RCTC Phil Law, SCAG Ken Lo'beck,RCTC Anne Mayer, ROTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Bob Morin, city of Corona Mike Perovich, CaWens. Steve Rogers, Municipal Engineering Resources John Standiford, RCTC 3. Approval of Minutes Minutes approved. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. 2006 STIP ADOPTION Shirley Medina, RCTC, explained that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) Staff Recommendation from County Share for 2006 STIP, attached to the agenda item, is the final listing from the action taken by the CTC in April. There are projects noted that were removed from the 2004 STIP or projects that are proposed in the 2006 STIP that were not included. The potential of having funding available through the bond measure, if it passes, could have an impact on the deleted projects. 6. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, RCTC; provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Infrastructure. Bond Package Overview" and summarized what happened in the legislature with the bonds. He stated that in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger developed a bond proposal of about $222 billion. Of that, $68 billion will be general obligation bonds for transportation. This was scaled to about $50 billion with the strategy by March to include the bond on the June ballot. However, the proposal did not get two-thirds approval in both houses. Now, there will be four separate bond measures on the November ballot for various infrastructure needs. .The focus for this meeting purpose is on the transportation package, Proposition 1 B, $19.75 billion statewide. • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Standiford provided an outline of where the $19 billion will be spent and how it will be allocated in each of the projects. $4.5 billion will go towards the new effort entitled, "Corridor Mobility Improvements." That will be allocated by the CTC. The CTC will develop the guidelines by December 2006. In transit capital, there is about $4 billion. There is about $2 billion to supplement the STIP, $3.1 billion for Ports Infrastructure, security and Air Quality - $1 billion for air quality mitigation with the remainder for major goods movement type of projects rail or truck improvements. There is $1 billion to revive what is known as the state and local partnership, essentially an augmentation program for self-helpcounties over 5 years. For local governments, there is $2 billion set aside for cities and counties with every city in the state guaranteed at least $400,000. Aside from the bonds, an even bigger part of the plan is Proposition 1 A. While the bond negotiations were going on, there was an effort to .get an initiative on the ballot to make Proposition 42 essentially untouchable. To protect Proposition 42, a measure similar to Proposition 1 A was developed to continue Proposition 42 as it is. There will still be a suspension clause from which the state may borrow. The state will be able to borrow only twice in a 10 year period and will have to repay any of the loans within 3 years, paying off previous loans before borrowing again. In response to a question, Mr. Standiford indicated that the idea on the local government financing is to have funding available as quickly as possible. Time is required to sell bonds and he will get more information regarding financing. He believes that the local government financing will be available sooner than the local partnership plan, which is a 5-year program. Shirley Medina stated that regarding the STIP funding, it would take a STIP fund estimate to be prepared. Updating the fund estimates can be done in a 5-6 month period but she is not sure if it will be a 2006 STIP augmentation or 2007 STIP. 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE Ken Lobeck introduced Philip Law and Mike Ainsworth from SCAG. Mr. Law stated that earlier this month SCAG asked commissions to submit a list of projects for consideration in the 2007 RTP. He provided a Power point presentation and highlighted the major points. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multimodal long-range plan (through 2035) and is updated every 4 years. He stated that an important part of what SCAG does is the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 4 conformity determination. The two major parts of that determination are Emissions analysis and Financial constraint. In developing the project Fist, SCAG starts first with the TIP (what has already been programmed) and assume that future revenues will be directed towards completing the TIP projects before anything else is built. The project list that he is discussing today focuses on those projects that are above and beyond the TIP so they have not moved into the programming stage yet. The projects are those that require state or federal funds, projects that require NEPA clearance or federal sign -off on the NEPA document, and projects that are regionally significant regardless of where they get the funds. The federal definition of "A Regionally Significant Project" is a project that is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs, including access to and from the area outside of the region; major activity centers in the region, such as hospitals, malls, stadiums and transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves. Mr. Law said that in the past few months, SLAG has been subject to increasing scrutiny on the financial constraint of both the plan and the TIP. This comes from FHWA's concerns about project cost changes and .project scope changes. FHWA's concerns regard the consistency between a project that is in the plan in the TIP/RTP and the NEPA document that they are being asked to sign. SCAG staff has tried explaining that when going from a long- range plan to programming to actual project construction, there will be changes and a more detail project description and increases in project costs. The general rule is that a 10% or higher increase in cost would require a RTP. plan amendment. Mr. Lawindicated that additional information is beingrequestedfor the RTP. The new fields that are being requested are: Project source, Existing configuration, Project cost by phase and Project purpose and need. Ken Lobeck will e-mail the spreadsheets to the individual agencies. this week and he will return them to SCAG by the end of June 2006. Alternatives development will be done between June and December 2006 and modeling and analysis will be done the early part of next year. A draft RTP will go out in the summer of 2007. The final should be'adopted by the end of next year. Bean Yeung asked if the 10% rule is by project or program. Mr. Law stated that it is by the project. It is not a new rule but it does apply at the project level. In response to Mr. Lobeck's question about how RTP amendments will be done, Mr. Law responded that SCAG has done about one or two RTP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 5 amendments in the past five or six years. They can take up to five months to complete. Mr. Boyd asked what the benefit is of a locally funded project being in the RTP. Mr. Law said that if the three criterions are met, the project must be in the plan. If a project is awaiting a NEPA sign off and the project is not in the plan, the federal agency will not sign off on the document. If a project does not need state or federal funds or if it does not need NEPA sign off and it is not regionally significant, then a project does not need to be submitted to the plan. If it is regionally significant, it must be included in the emissions analysis. In response to complaints about submitting projects to the RTP, Mr. Law stated that if TUMF projects are not submitted to SCAG they would not be coded into the network. Shirley >Medina said that the TUMF network was included in the last RTP round. The 2004 RTP was based on preliminary Nexus study numbers; therefore, the total costs should be reviewed as they have changed. All the fields should be reviewed to be sure they are properly reflective of the new updates. Discussion ensued about how to accelerate the review and if WRCOG could review the TUMF funded projects. Juan Perez, county of Riverside, motioned with a second from Bill Hughes, city of Temecula, to ask WRCOG to assist in the RTP project update. 8. FFY 05/06 OBLIGATION DELIVERY PLAN Shirley Medina, RCTC, provided the FFY 05/06 Obligation Plan (05-1-06) and indicated that this item will be a monthly item. She stated that the agencies have provided information concerningwhat projects are going forward for. the end of the FFY 05/06. She further stated that the report would be sent via, a -mail regularly to be sure to adhere to the dates. If obligation packages have not been submitted past the due date, staff needs to be informed. Staff will work closely with District 8 to ensure that as many projects are obligated as possible. Ms. Medina reported that Caltrans is reviewing inactive projects — projects that have been obligated sometime ago and nothing in at least a 12-month period has ensued. The list of those projects will be e-mailed to each agency. Ms. Medina reiterated that Caltrans is asking for invoices as well as updates of when the next invoice will be submitted and that explanations are required Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 6 as to why the projects are inactive and what is being done to rectify that so that the projects can be removed from the list. Not providing that information will result in the ,projects being deobligated. In response to a question regarding how this process correlates with the recent FHWA exercise, Ms. Medina indicated that this is a follow-up, When FHWA reviewed projects, they focused on only a few projects and Caltrans is responsible to make sure that these projects are updated. Caltrans is looking at identifying projects ahead of time to avoid deobligation by FHWA. Tom Boyd, city of Riverside, reminded the TAC that Caltrans recently gave the agencies a preliminarydatabase of all the projects and that they should review the list and let Caltrans know if they are still active. He reiterated that agencies should bill Caltrans since individual cities are carrying the finance cost of the projects. Regarding the rehabilitation projects on the-FFY 05/06 Obligation Plan (05-1- 06), Dave Barakian, city of Palm Springs, asked if assistance is available in obtaining anenvironmental document since projects cannot be obligated without it. Anne Mayer, . RCTC, stated that when the project delivery subcommittee meets on Thursday morning, the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCEs) Environmental Documents are a primary topic of discussion on how to move them through. The subcommittee will also focus on the obligation plan to make sure projects get obligated: Ms. Mayer also stressed the importance of returning the milestone reports with dates so that they can be tracked. Staff is basing discussions` from the milestone information.: She further stressed' that for those agencies that have advertised federal projects prior to May 1 with the old DBE requirements, make sure bids are not opened without an addendum going out to change the DBE requirements; otherwise, they will be ineligible if a contract is awarded under the old DBE requirements. 9. PROJECT DELIVERY UPDATE Anne Mayer stated that the Project Delivery Subcommittee members have been working hard to identify some of the big issues related to project delivery, specifically regarding local assistance and its process. She stated that the subcommittee members, from RCTC - Shirley Medina, Anne Mayer, Paul Blackwelder; from Caltrans - Sean Yeung, Bill Mosby and Ernie Figueroa met for several hours recently to identify the top priorities for resolution. • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 7 One of the priorities is focusing on programmatic PCEs to make sure that the sign -off process goes quickly. Another is the Memorandum of Understanding that it is hoped the TAC would execute with the department that identifies issue resolution processes and commitments regarding durations for the process itself. The subcommittee is also reviewing short- term project delivery improvements. The subcommittee will meet again Thursday, May 18 at Caltrans to focus on project delivery specific improvements that can be made. She discussed results of the project delivery survey to determine what agencies wanted assistance from RCTC and whether or not they were willing to pay for it and the split consensus it produced. Tom Boyd stated that one of the challenges the agencies faced with the survey is how the staff support will be used has not been defined and each agency had different expectations ranging from help filling out forms to help tracking projects. Some agencies felt that they did not need any help. He suggested that the process will become easier and quicker once the first meetings are through and discussions with Caltrans management and the subcommittee develop. Ms. Mayer announced that very shortly there would be an environmental group headed by a senior environmental planner totally focusing on local assistance. She said that there would be discussion about how to focus more attention on local assistance from an environmental standpoint at Thursday's meeting to keep the projects moving forward. Ernie Figueroa, Caltrans District 8, is expected at Thursday's meeting to talk about what is being done. 10. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT In addition to Caltrans Local Assistance information provided in agenda item 9 above, Shirley Medina conveyed that the project delivery subcommittee is working on a Memorandum of Understanding and it will be in a format that each TAC member will be expected to sign. It is expected that a final draft will be submitted to the subcommittee on May 18 and presented to the TAC as soon as possible. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 8 11. MILESTONE REPORTS AND PROJECT MONITORING Ken Lobeck, .RCTC, presented an overview of milestone ;reports and how they are used at. different levels. The monitoring is done to ensure funds are properly expended and, projects delivered timely. He summarized the following process from development of obligation targets through development of the obligation delivery plan. The discussion included an overview of annual apportionments, RTIP programming actions, AB 1012 apportionment balances, RCTC's milestone reports, and other agencies interested in project delivery. - In a related manner, Shirley Medina informed the members that staff is actively undergoing a process to develop a database. The contract should be signed with a contractor soon and part of it will include a web base project management database. With the database, when the updates are done for the project milestone reports, agencies will have the ability to access it online which should streamline the process. 12. 2006 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP) STATUS UPDATE The 2006 FTIP/RTIP is moving forward and the new DEMOACE six awarded projects that the RCTC Board approved have been included in the RTIP. SCAG is modeling the projects and the expected completion time is mid - June. SCAG will be ready for public review in mid -June with approval about mid -August. The TIP is expected to be approved by October 4, at which time the 2006 TIP will replace the 2004 TIP. 13. 2006 FTIP DEMOACE AND HBRR PROGRAMMING UPDATES Mr. Lobeck said that the March 23 HBRR list was included in the 2006 FTIP. A list of projects showing how they are programmed is included in the staff report. 14. CHANGE TO INTERCHANGE PROJECTS WITH HOV ENTRY RAMPS DESIGNATED AS TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURE PROJECTS (TCMs) IN THE DRAFT 2006 RTIP • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2006 Page 9 Ken Lobeck explained that existing programming guidance requires interchange improvement projects with an HOV entry ramp be classified as a TCM project. Recent discussions with FHWA and EPA have determined that the HOV entry ramp is not sufficient to designate the entire project as a TCM. Eight interchange improvement projects will be changed back to the non-TCM projects. 15. MAY 10, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Anne Mayer said one of the highlights was Mark Watts' presentation on the bond package. Another was Riverside Orange County Authority where instead of forming a separate entity, it will be OCTA, RCTC, and MIND representatives with Caltrans District Directors. That will be the governing body to deal with the geotechnical borings for a new tunnel. 16. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS There was no other business or announcements. i 17. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:40 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for June 19, 2006, 10:00 A.M., Banning City Hall Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA Respectfully submitted, Kf n Lobeck Staff Analyst • AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 19, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: FFY 2005/06 Obligation Plan Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: Receive and file an updated FFY Obligation Plan (RCTC version) as of June 1, 2006. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: i I TAC members will receive an updated FFY 2005/06 RCTC versions Obligation Plan. The revised obligation plan is updated as of June 1'. The changes to the DBE program appear to have impacted several projects and some planned obligations are slipping. The new PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis requirement for non exempt projects in the South Coast Air Basin also appears to be delaying planned project obligations. • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 19, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Project Delivery and Issues Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Technical Advisory Committee members sign the attached Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Project Delivery and Issues Resolution BACKGROUND INFORMATION A few months ago, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) formed a subcommittee to review project delivery issues. The TAC subcommittee has 'evolved to a Project Delivery team including Caltrans Local Assistance Staff and RCTC staff to identify key issues affecting project delivery and work towards streamlining and clarifying processes, roles and responsibilities to the extent possible. The Project Delivery team includes the following members: Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Habib Motlagh, Cities of, Perris and San Jacinto Juan Perez, County of Riverside Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC 'Paul Blackwelder, RCTC Consultant Bill Mosby, Caltrans Sean Yeung, Caltrans Ernie Figueroa, Caltrans The attached MOU has been developed as a first step towards establishing general guidance for reviewing project document submittals as well as an issues resolution for resolving issues that arise during the project life cycle. This MOU is a consolidated effort involving input from all members of the above Project Delivery team members. A "Master" MOU will be available at the TAC meeting for all agencies to sign.i Local agencies not in attendance will be asked to sign the area designated for their signature and submit to RCTC as soon as possible. NEXT STEPS: Local Assistance — • Local Assistance is continuing progress with the development of a project tracking system that would be available to RCTC and local agencies. The tracking system is anticipated to be available in July. • An "Inactive Project Listing" was emailed to local agencies on May 25, 2006 and Paul Blackwelder, RCTC Consultant, is working with local agencies to submit the required information to Caltrans as soon as possible. In general, projects Fisted on the Inactive list have had no invoicing- activity for over 6 months. Responses are needed to prevent funds from being automatically deobligated by FHWA. Lastly, projects on the list may have been completed but not closed out. It ;is possible that Caltrans/FHWA will not authorize additional funds to agencies that do not close out their projects. Therefore, closing out projects is critical to agencies. that want to continue using state and federal funding for their projects. • The Project Delivery Team suggested that Caltrans provide training workshops starting with PES and Section 106. We have asked Caltrans to schedule the training in August, State Highways — • The next Project Delivery Team meeting is scheduled for June 29, 2006 to discuss state highway project issues with Paul Engstrom,, Deputy District Director, Program/Project Management. RCTC Assistance — • RCTC will continue to offer assistance to local agencies that experience issues with project delivery. Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding • • Memorandum of Understanding Between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Technical Advisory Committee Members (Local Agencies) and the California Department of Transportation District 08 Regarding Project Delivery and Issues Resolution This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), entered into effect on 2006 between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), Technical Advisory Committee members (Local Agencies), and the California Department of Transportation (Department) District 08 outlines the general areas of responsibility for various project development activities, including reviews and approvals, for proposed improvements including but not limited 'to, state highways (non-SHOPP), local arterials, transit/rail, and bridge projects. This MOU constitutes a guide to the intentions and strategies of the parties involved and is not intended to authorize funding or project effort nor is it a legally binding contract. This MOU covers Local Assistance project development, oversight, Request for Authorization (RFA) of funds (obligation of funds), expenditures, Issues Resolution, and all other activities that require the administration of funds and/or project approvals from the Department, starting with initial project development phases through project closeout. Cooperative Agreements will continue to be required for specific state highway projects. The intent of this MOU would serve as an enhancement to the Cooperative Agreements entered between the Department and Commission/Local Agencies for state highway projects that require Cooperative. Agreements. INTENT The intent of this MOU is to establish a true partnership between the Department, Commission and Local Agencies to improve project delivery, and define how the entities will work together as one Project Team to successfully deliver projects in a timely and efficient manner. This MOU will act as a guideline for the Commission, Department and Local Agencies to assist with successful and timely project delivery, and it is not intended to be legally binding on the parties or to supplant any of the responsibilities of the parties under other agreements between the parties or applicable state or federal law. GENERAL The Commission and Local Agencies serve as lead agency for various projects consisting of federal, state, and local fund sources. The administration of state and federal funds is the responsibility of the Department's Office of Local Assistance. Project approvals on or off the state highway system, regardless of the fund source, are the responsibility of the Department. The Commission and Local Agencies desire to streamline, to the extent possible, the processes 6/13/2006 established to administer state and federal projects including improved communications with the Department. Further, a better understanding of the Department's review and approval of project documents would also benefit the . Commission and Local Agencies in estimating project schedules. The Commission allocates federal, state, and local funding and implements projects in adherence to state and federal regulations requiring' obligation and expenditure of funds within specific time periods or risk loss of funds. Project delays are continuing to occur with project delivery and Riverside County could experience, at a minimum, a loss of funds. A process for addressing issues that arise during the project cycle would enhance the ability to reduce project delays and prevent loss of funds. TERMS OF AGREEMENT The following agreements have been mutually agreed upon and will serve as a guideline to resolve conflicts and provide a general framework of responsibility. Department agrees to: Given the responsibilities of the department to review and approve required documents according to state and federal rules the Department agrees to the following: 1) Upon receipt of project documents requiring review and approval, the Department will notify the Local Agency that the submittal was received and will provide project status updates on a bi-weekly basis and/or through the implementation of a database that agencies can access on- line. If the Department determines that a submittal is incomplete or inadequate, the Department will contact the Commission and/or Local Agency in writing within 10 working days describing the actions needed to complete and correct the submittal. 3) Department will provide comments in writing and send them to lead agency and/or designee at one time, instead of piecemeal. 4) Department staff will be trained in areas that are problematic in project delivery including conferring with other Districts and Headquarters, the Commission, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Agency. Department will continue to provide courses and workshops to the Commission, Local Agencies and consultants on processing federal -aid projects. 6/13/2006 6) To the extent possible, the Department will allocate sufficient staff to manage volume of projects. Commission and Local Agencies agree to: 1) Ensure key staff and consultants are knowledgeable about the federal -aid project process by attending training courses offered by the Department, FHWA, or other qualified training institution. The Commission will keep a database demonstrating they comply with this requirement. 2) Notify Department staff prior to submitting project documents that the document is being mailed or hand delivered, and indicate the key Local Agency contact person. The Commission will provide a quarterly forecast of projects anticipated to be submitted within the next six months and approximate dates of submittal. Local Agency staff will contract with consultants experienced with the federal aid process and closely monitor their work. Local Agencies will instruct consultants to include them in all correspondence between Department and consultant. Meet with the Department to discuss any document that has been submitted and rejected three times. The time taken to schedule and hold this meeting will be in addition to the times provided below. 6) Initiate project status meetings/project delivery team (PDT) meetings, if applicable, take meeting minutes and respond to all action items expeditiously and in writing. Respond to Department comments expeditiously and in writing at one time, instead of piecemeal. 8) The Commission and Local Agencies will work strategically and cooperatively in planning and programming projects to distribute project activity throughout the year and provide for realistic project scheduling. All Parties Agree to the following: 1) Upon notification and receipt of required documents from Commission and Local Agencies, the Department will adhere to the following timelines each time the document is submitted: 6/13/2006 Document Review Timelines Document Reviews Caltrans Review Time * Agency Response Overall Duration PES 30 days 14 days 6 to 8 wks PA&ED for State Hwy projects 60 days Depends on CT comments 2 to 6 months Programmatic Categorical Exemptions 30 days 14 days 45 to 60 days PS&E approval for local arterial projects 30 days 30 days 60 to 90 days PS&E for state highway projects 120 days Depends on CT comments 6 to 9 months R/W Certifications 30 days 14 days 4 to 6 wks RFAs/Obligation packages 14 days 14 days 30 days Note: nays = working days * Initial Review. Subsequent review time is dependent upon number of Department comments. Each party will strive to meet the agreements contained in this MOU and if any conditions arise that prevent any of the items in this agreement from being met, the affected parties will immediately notify the other party and the Commission to inform the Technical Advisory Committee. Any staff changes will be addressed by fully informing the new staff of the project's status and key decisions/commitments previously agreed upon. To attend PDT meetings and respond to all action items expeditiously and in writing. At the first PDT meeting, the project schedule will be reviewed as proposed by the Local Agency to ensure the project schedule includes processes identified in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and other applicable requirements. The Department and the Local Agency must agree on the project schedule. A concerted effort should be made by all parties to adhere to the project schedule. Changes to the project schedule should only be made in the event of unknown circumstances or circumstances beyond the Department's or Local Agency's control. Review times are to be included in the project schedule. ISSUES RESOLUTION In the event the Department, Commission, or Local Agencyencounters a problem with project delivery, including the above terms of agreement, the Issues Resolution will serve as a guide in resolving any: disagreements or concerns encountered during any phase of project delivery. 6/13/2006 It is the intent of the Commission, the Department, and Local Agencies to resolve issues at the lowest level possible, which would be at the Project Development Team (PDT) level. However, when substantive issues arise in the project life - cycle, they need to be resolved as diligently as possible by elevating them to upper management so consensus can be obtained. Therefore, the following levels describe how issues are to be elevated. First Level Team: Local Agency Project Manager and District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) and/or Department Senior Issues will arise in the midst of the project team's effort to develop the project. Many of these issues can be resolved within the project team's level, especially those that do not change the scope of the project, do not require additional budget, and do not delay the approved schedule. The staff involved will review issues that arise, discuss the options for resolution, the pros and cons to each option, and any advocate's reasons in support of specific options. Provided the resolution does not change the scope, cost and schedule of the project, the first level team should determine the outcome. If the first level team either does not have sufficient authority to resolve the issue or is unable to agree, then they will elevate the issue, within 3 days, to the second level team. Second Level Team: Public Works/Planning Director or City Engineer and Department's Local Assistance Deputy Director The first level team will prepare a document presenting the issue, options for resolution, and the pros and cons to each option including any advocate's reasons in support of specific options. This level should determine the outcome of the resolution provided they have sufficient authority to resolve the issue. If not, then they will elevate the issue, within 3 days, to the third level team. Third Level Team: City Manager/Mayor/Councilmember and Department's District Director The third (and final) level team will review the document prepared by the first level team with additional comments provided by the second level team. The issue must be resolved within this level. If for some reason, the issue cannot be fully resolved without approval from the City Council/Commission and/or the Department, then the third level team will direct preparation of agenda items for any required action needed to ratify their agreed upon solution. Decisions made at each review level are to be documented by the Project Manager or a designee thereof and stored in the project file to become a permanent part of the project history. 6/13/2006 Signatures to this Agreement are as follows: Riverside County Transportation Commission Department of Transportation, District 08 County of Riverside 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 6/13/2006 City of Desert Hot Springs City of Palm Desert City of Hemet City of Palm Springs City of Indian Wells City of Perris City of Indio City of Rancho Mirage City of La Quinta City of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore City of San Jacinto City of Moreno Valley City of Temecula City of Murrieta Coachella Valley Association of Governments City of Norco Western Riverside Council of Governments 6/13/2006 • AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 19, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: Receive and file an update on the effort to reformat Plan section projects and receive an updated copy of the reformatted Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Grade Separation project list. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff sent out the reformatted RTP Plan section project lists to lead agencies at the end of May with a return due date of June 26, 2006. However, the reformatting process resulted in a key error for Coachella valley cities. The wrong file was used to reformat Coachella Valley cities. CVAG had submitted an updated "CVAG all -jurisdiction" file that included project start and end years. An earlier version of the CVAG all -jurisdiction project list was used to reformat the projects into the new format. CVAG notified RCTC of the error and sent out the most current project list to lead agencies for their use. RCTC staff offered to reformat the project lists using the current updated list if the agency notes major discrepancies between the two lists. In reformatting the project lists, all interchange improvement projects are now separated from the arterials and are located in the Mainline section. However, the new format requires the capacity increase to the 1Cs to be stated as well. IC projects cannot be stated as "Reconstruct IC/ramps". Projects previously shown funded by TUMF are now called out as "Dev Mit Fee". Along with this change, the revised format requires costs to be identified by phase, a purpose and need statement be included, and associated benefits called out. WRCOG is reviewing and updating "Dev Mit Fee" identified projects for western County lead agencies based on the new TUMF Nexus Study. RCTC and Ca!trans are coordinating the update of the Mainline section. In addition to IC improvement projects, the Mainline section will include corridor improvement projects (e.g. CETAP) and ITS related projects. A reformatted ACE project list for the 2007 RTP has been completed and will be provided to TAC members at the meeting. Due to the funding commitment restrictions imposed on the RTP Plan section, several of the ACE projects will have to be moved to the RTP Unconstrained section. The ACE list along with the developing 2007 RTP status will be discussed with TAC members. • • • AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. • AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 19, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Programming Changes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: Receive a short presentation on the 2006 RTIP and Amendment programming adjustments BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I This item is a continuation from last month's discussion of programming changes to the RTIP especially to amendments. TAC members will receive a short presentation that provides further background on the types of RTIP amendments, the limitations of making changes, and the new added wrinkle of the RTP consistency check against RTIP formal amendments. i Attachment: RTIP Programming Changes - Powerpoint slides 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Programming Changes Ken Lobeck RCTC Technical Advisory Committee June 19, 2006 • 2006 RTIP Programming Chan • Adherence to a quarterly amendment schedule • Amendment types & limitations • Administrative amendments • Formal amendments • Developing the amendment • RTP consistency upon the RTIP amendments • • 2006 RTP-Ik RTIP Documents • RTP - Regional Transportation Plan: - 30 year long range vision of growth and mobility for the SCAG region • RTIP - Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP): - Represents the first 6 yearn of projects to be implemented in the RTP - Subset of the RTP - RTIP = SCAG Regional Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) - RTIP/FTIP: 1st three years are the financially constrained years or the Triennial Element also called the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) 40 • 2006 RTIP Amendments FHWA considers the number of RTIP amendments Metropolitan Planning Agencies (MPO) submitted in the 2004 RTIP excessive • Directed MPOs to adhere to a quarterly amendment schedule starting in October 2006 for the 2006 RTIP • • RTIP Quarterly Amendments Final County Tip SORT: BY SOURCE Project10 45000 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 2006 Federal TIP (FY 2006f2007 - 2011/20121 PROJECT REPORT All State Coungr. A0 Print Date: 5131/200 System 5 Route l0 Post Mite 47_40 to 43_90 Element 2 Program CAX70 Description: Yr Added 1994 ON 1-10 NEAR RANCHO MIRAGE FROM 1.5 KM WEST TO 0.9 KM EAST OF RAMON RD IC - CONSTRUCT BOB HOPE DR EXTENSION (6 LANES) W1 A NEW DIAMOND IC d. MODIFY RAMON RD IC 8, RAMPS (PPNO: 0007D) Lead Agency CALTRANS Source;FTW 06FT1P NO Env. Doc. TCM N County RIVERSIDE Amend # 0 Basin was Model # R312 Change Reason COST SOH FEDERAL Comments: Fund Name STP•RIP STP-RIP STP•RIP YEAR Eng. Cost RAN Cost Cons, Cost Completion Date 05/31/09 Fund Total 850 S850 $850 2003/2004 52,704 227 $2.931 2006/2007 7,832 $7,832 2007/2008 35,698 D5,698 $2,704 $8,059 $36,54s (Fonds are M ihaussnda of down) Subtotal $4S,4(1 Subtotal Total Cost: $47,311 2906 Update: Coms+adtxlule basal on 200E STIR 2006 STIP.RIP_ Orisin STIP= 19,98 RIP. EA#-45600 I_ STPL for SW from Monterey Ave- • Amendment Types • Administrative: - Minor changes • Formal: - Everything else that is allowable through the amendment process • • Amendment Changes Limitation • Changes not allowed through an amendment: - Major scope changes to modeled projects (e.g. widen 2 to 4 lanes needs to be 2 to 6 lanes) - Adding new major scope elements that would need to be modeled (e.g. IC widening project now includes an aux lane) - Changing modeled years (e.g. existing completion date in 2010 is extended to 2013) - Major project scope changes can only be made every 2 years through an RTIP Update -aAvAunauolqucuiasau7dIS'1009SY-Ora "dit8661=dI1SOP°AII d11S900Z-dus90OZu6R'1114>>n rtls47:012Pdf19004 RrS'9CS 6503S POCZS mows 6000/900Z 005"8£$ �I'Wirt 44304,10g4 ?RAH dlav,1g zta`ts L0058£$ zta't LOCC900Z 208H da-d.LS It6`ZS LZZ /� Vo teCOZ tRi8H ��us mows DMsroaX Or£$ OM 0S8 puo s4unoudo 80219OOZ ldiS II/0£/9 punj a6uoto o; a;op uoi;a/dudou 1IDL Purl woo. O a wo0'Sua a N Punj . ua x (OL000 :ONdd) %/ ( � 90910nmISN .Gowso elea uopeidwoo Lamm 0 # Puaunci �o a;ap o; �opAu : MO luPd ovals C 1404314 Io3road (Z L Ef L IU - 100Z+900Z Ad) dLL IBnePaj 990Z S1N31NNIIRA00 AO NOIMOOSSV VINa0d11VJ N 13H1fiOS atinOS A9 :11dOS du kunoa R u3 j ()quo annegsnin) sa6ue43 • • • • Administrative Amendments • Allowable Minor Changes: - Minor description changes that do not change the scope or conflict with the environmental document - Total cost changes less than 200/0 and below $2 million - Fund changes among PE, R/W, or Construction phases with no change to the total project cost - Lead agency changes - Fund swaps between projects (e.g. Moving CMAQ from one project to another as long as the funds are already in the Triennial element • • Administrative Amend Process Key Administrative Amendment Processing Steps: 1. RCTC develops amendment package 2. SCAG review and analysis 3. SCAG Conformity section review 4. Mandatory public review process 5. Financial plan finished - Amendment package completed 6. Amendment sent to Ca!trans HQ for review and approval 7. Amendment sent to federal review agencies for review and approval (FHWA, EPA, & FTA) 8. FHWA approves formal RTIP amendment 1 to 6 weeks 2 to 4 weeks Not required Not required Not required 4 weeks Not required Not required Total approval time is about 2 months from SCAG receipt of the amendment • • Administrative Amend Approva Transportation 4 eguro rarksporInco, nomve Av(gtiPn f .Goods tribaement j'Maglev I Maivr.Regivnal Corridor flannng , "Wens and Progrero's TeeANcaEP.dvisory Cprrtinttjae �' Regipnai Transportation Improvemenl,Pragram Regional Transportation, Plan Sauttiern iTS Arb-46di re_ j_ Transportation Finance Program Status af2004 RTIP Amendments a Gi trtl e Ve�iizfi }~• Ni .,y- `S, {!.. i + k 0 '3fF� � �3r ��'�. 4r �'��' r �� J^"^�* �� ����5 ���A �j vA�d "e4KeW:♦Ni- iem� �� �„µ.Yi�f vm �1L-�. 4 �'��iSii� � r�Enn "�n'N y l'AjyFIG3 V V Wkl)' Z , Amendment Status Posted at: http : www. s cag . ca. g ov/rti p •. Formal Amendments • Requires both Caltrans HQ and FHWA approval • Requires formal confirmation of no impact to conformity finding • Requires 30 day formal public review period • May take 4 to 6 months for approval to occur • Formal Amendments • Allowable Project Changes: - Cost changes that exceed 200/0 of total project cost and are equal to or greater than $2 million • $100 million total project cost increases by $2 million = Formal amendment - Minor limit changes: Possibly up to % mile for State Highway System projects (e.g. IC improvements) depending on overall project distance - Adding federal funds to the project in the 1st 3 years of the RTIP (Triennial Element) - Adding new exempt project (e.g. federally funded transit project) or new exempt phase (e.g. PE added to an IC widening project) - Major description/scope & limit changes ONLY to non modeled projects - Added note: All changes must be explained to FHWA Formal Amendment Processin Key Formal Amendment Processing Steps: 1. RCTC develops Amendment package 2. SCAG review and analysis 3. 4. S. SCAG Conformity section review Mandatory public review process Financial plan finished - Amendment package completed 6. Amendment sent to Caltrans HQ for review and approval 7. Amendment sent to federal review agencies for review and approval (FHWA, EPA, & FTA) 8. FHWA approves formal RTIP amendment Size of amendment impacts review and approval time 2006 RTIP Amendment 01 will start late August 2006. FHWA approval for the "Formal" amendment will be during February 2007 1 to 6 weeks 2 to 4 weeks 2 to 4 weeks 30 days 2 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks Total approval time 4 to 6 months • • Formal Amend Approval IEZ;ra RMIln 133T77131P rmr77/111x 7"TI Aviotjbn j ` Cpods,Movement Mpglev j r,Opjor.Regional Corridor Planning -` • RIffina and Progr.mssTaclinical Advisory Commttt0. 1: Regicnsl Transpohatlon Improvement Program Regiorfal:Transpodc4lon,Plan.�.;Soutfiern Cal'rforri .Regional lTSArchdectie -.7ranspertation,Finance Program Status of2004 RTIP Amendments Transportation ,,,,„ WO U4-19 ' l i�elas Orange Rlverside;San dad; a�d:wenlur'a Courtly - .; .os Angeles iSI10Cp Uptlafe ieY Nnpe101'. '.os A[igele� ,Orairge � Rrverside3and er�arq�yrooCuur�!as ... .. Amendment Status Posted at: http:www.scag. ca. gov/rtip • Agency Actions • Submit needed changes by marking up the TIP sheet • Provide supporting materials as requested • Don't wait to notify RCTC of needed changes • Requested changes may require discussion with FHWA prior to the amendment submission • • Developing the Amendment Rtveranle.Caui W. - rlmenehrient n 22 Project Narrative FY 2004,2005 - FY 200092010 Mann 2r,X.5 PROJECT FILE: Screen (Modified) NCN31: GRADE SEPA ND NEGATIVE DECLARA tart tyPingarrF a adik;rr xz DFEa dk Aqunt are m ti+ii Once changes submitted: 1. Determine the amendment type — Administrative or Formal Make required changes to the RTI P database Complete the required narrative analysis for SCAG Submit required support materials Develop the financial plan Submit the amendment to SCAG • • RTIP and RTP Consistency • New projects or project changes requiring a formal amendment will be checked against current RTP for consistency • -- --- RTP Consistency Requirements 1. Project limits consistent between RTP and RTIP? 2. Project scope consistent between RTP and RTIP? r Auxiliary SR•81 EB Orange County Line SR•71 Add auxiliary lane EB which drops at Green River, another extends to SR-71 $29.120.000 r. 2007 t IC/Ramps 140 a R•791Beaumont Ave btwn 6th St & 1st St Reconstruct interchangelramps $14,500,000 e 2015 ► 2020 Beaumont Western Co TUMF t IC/Ramps I.10 - at 8th St btwn RamseySt& Lincoln St R construct interchangelramps $2,900,000 ► 2011 I' 2020 Banning Western Co TUMF r IClRamps I-10 at Ave 50 Co truct new interchange 6REF1 2004 2006 Coachella CVAG r IClRamps I-10 - at C5fimesa ' ;- ' �BIvdlSarrdalwood Or btwn 71G St § - Sandalwood Or Reconstruot interchangalfamps $29 000,000 ;2008 2008 Calimesa , ... , Western Co TUMF _ t IC/Ramps 1-10 McNaughlon Pkwy (approx. 3.38 mi e10 Dillon Rdl Construct interchange $20,000, 0 2007 2008 Coachella State Highways r IC/Ramps MO at Pennsylvania Ave btwn 6th St § 3rd St Reconstruct Interchangelramps $14,500,000 ► 2015 ► 020 Beaumont Western Co TUMF t IC/Ramps 1-10 at Portola Ave btwn Dinah Shore § Varner Construct new IC (4lanes) and ramps Incl. bridge over UPRR § Varner realignment $19,750,000 20 Palm Oesert 3. Project costs consistent between RTP and RTIP? 4. Project timing consistent between RTP and RTIP? Past inconsistencies between RTP and RTIP have resulted in expanded RTP project details for the 2007 RTP SSA SSA SSA seA saA seA saA saA saA ape6-e ue 6upeaules fiq sonny films asearaap pue'flll!gow anoduq'uapsseuoa aonpu II!m uopeedef aped NI 6ulssora ape6-n ue 6upeu!wpa fiq spumy dopes aseassap pus 4llpgow anoduq'uopsa6uoa aonpat ems uopeedas aped 641 SSA- saA Sae saA SSA SSA SSA saA saA saA Pups= aped -le ue 6upeu!wpa 6q speeey finales *stamp put 'know anoduq vopsaduoo aonpat Ipm uopmelas aped a41 Pdssou aped -le ue 6unvades fig spumy fiesles aseanap pue Is = anodwl vopsa6uoa aonpa il!m uopeedas aped Pa SSA SSA SSA SSA SSA dissom aped a filales anmdw! pue'fieicpsu anoldw! vopsa6uoo eonpal p!m uopendas sped ay1 saA SSA saA saA SSA dessmo aped le filales anodwl pue dessiow anodua voasa6uoa aanpat p!m uopeedas aped ay1 saA saA saA SSA &estop ape6-4t ue 6upeu!wpa fig spent' fipales as aseadsp pus'finpgow anoduq vopsa6uoa aonpat plm uopeedes aped ay1 saA SSA saA SSA 6ulssaa LO aped -le ue 6upeuwpa fiq some Slaps anodes sue ding= snadu4 4ao1sa6uoa aonpat Ipm uopeudas aped mu r/ap �rYaNisegads? fj P?aNPve,+AsplmallPNaJ`/.: U08 cs rus rows!' aaOUaa'GS oaOWA °Wont ombatts aagnacros aagaats oecoaess .1' Bakmeepsi6ogg ADuaiaspuoD dlli_Pue dal] • • • • RTIP -& RTP Not Consistent? • RTIP project deemed inconsistent against RTP if: - Limits/cross streets are significantly different - Different scope: • RTP = Widen 2 to 4 through lanes • RTIP = Widen 2 to 6 through lanes - Stated costs between RTIP and RTP are greater than 10% - Project start and end timing is significantly different: • RTIP: Start = 2008 & Completion = 2015 • RTP: Start = 2020 & Completion = 2027 • Inconsistency will trigger SCAG to accomplish an RTP amendment Lianllap pa[oad Aepp Aenn ampoue auknaq Minn dIlll pue dill ma - :13eduui neaanp pagsilgeisa Apeap you sluat.upuauup dIlb gv!nn uoipun[uoa ui quampuauae dill gsilcluaoppe ssaaoad - aplduaoa sgluow ue3 luampuauae dill - an33o aneq Minn luampuauae dill - quauipuauue laa[oad dI121 eLn ui pasodoad sa6ueya gp'nn lualsisuoDui aq punoi si dill �I • dill' uodn dill • • • • Programming changes - Part -2- • Next month - The SAFETEA LU grace year & the resulting programming Lockdown: - More details on the 1st Quarterly Amendment to the 2006 RTIP - Review impact of the 2004 RTP lapse in July 2007 and the resultingprogramming lock - down that will occur from Jul 2007 until 2007 RTP is approved (6-8 months) - Programming lock -down = No formal RTIP amendments allowed - Examine why the 2nd Quarterly Amendment to the 2006 RTIP may not be feasible • • RTIP-Programming Changes Questions? • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 19, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: PM 2.5 Project Level Conformity and Hot Spot Analyses Summary ST'.AFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: Receive and file a summary of the current discussion concerning PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis Requirements BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1 Orli March 10m 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local air quality impacts in PM 2.5 noon attainment and maintenance areas. The impact of the PM 2.5 ruling will affect non exempt projects in the South Coast Air Basin moving through the NEPA process. FHWA, EPA, SCAG, Ca!trans and the CTCs are working to understand projects of air quality concern (POAQC) that will require a PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis and which projects are clearly exempt from a PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis, responsibilities for the project sponsor, and SCAG's role through interagency consultation. Attached are a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) summary sheet . for PM 2.5 that provides further guidance concerning the PM 2.5 requirement and a draft interagency consultation form. Attachments: 1. PM 2.5 Project Level Conformity and Hot Spot Analyses - Frequently Asked Questions 2. Draft Form: PM 2.5 Conformity Hot Spot Analysis - Project Summary for Interagency Consultation PM2.5 Project -Level Conformity and Hot -Spot Analyses Frequently Asked Questions 1. When does PM2.5 project -level conformity apply for FHWA projects in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas? A project -level conformity determination will be required prior to the first action to adopt, accept, approve, or fund a non-exempt phase of a FHWA project in a PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area on or after April 5, 2006. 2. How does PM2.5 project -level conformity apply for different types of projects? Exempt projects. Exempt projects are those listed in 40 CFR 93.126 and traffic signal synchronization projects under 40 CFR 93.128. These projects are exempt from project - level conformity, and PM2.5 project -level conformity determinations are not required. Projects of local air quality concern. Projects of air quality concern are those types of projects that are listed in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). PM2.5 project -level conformity determinations that meet all applicable criteria (see 40 CFR 93.109) are required for these types of projects, and they must include a hot -spot analysis. Nonexempt projects that are not of local air quality concern. This would include projects that are not of the type listed in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), but are also not exempt. PM2.5 project -level conformity determinations that meet all applicable criteria (see 40 CFR 93.109) are required for these types of projects, but they do not have to include a hot -spot analysis. The project -level conformity determination should document that the project is not of the type identified in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), and EPA has determined that such projects meet the Clean Air Act's requirements without any further hot -spot analysis. 3. At what phase in project development and how often must project -level conformity be determined for PM2.5 areas? FHWA must make a project -level conformity determination prior to its first action to adopt, accept, approve or fund a non-exempt phase of a project that occurs on or after . April 5, 2006. In most cases project -level conformity determinations are made as part of the NEPA process, and must be completed prior to adoption of the CE, FONSI, or ROD. Conformity must be redetermined only if one of the following occurs: a significant change in the project's design concept and scope; three years elapse since the most recent major step to advance the project; or initiation of a supplemental environmental document for air quality purposes (40 CFR 93.104(d)). Major steps include: NEPA process completion, start of final design, acquisition of a significant portion of the right- of-way, and construction (including Federal approval of plans, specifications, and estimates.) 4. When should PM2.5 project -level conformity be determined for projects that are . already under development? If the project still requires a FHWA approval or authorization, a project -level conformity determination will be required, prior to the first such action on or after April`5, 2006, even if the project has already completed the NEPA process, or for multi -phase projects, even if other phases of the project have already been constructed. After project -level conformity is determined for a project, a new conformity determination is only required under the scenarios discussed in 40 CFR 93.104(d). If no new FHWA approval or authorization is required for a project on or after April 5, 2006, then project -level conformity will not be required. 5. How should PM2.5 project -level conformity be determinedformulti-phase projects that are already under construction? If any phase of the project still requires a FHWA approval or authorization, a project - level conformity determination will be required prior to the first such action on or after April 5, 2006. In this case, the required PM2.5 hot -spot analysis should focus on those portions of the project area that are not already under construction or are not completed and require a new FHWA approval or authorization. 6. For a PM2.5 project -level conformity determination that is not being made as part of the initial NEPA process for a project, how should the conformity determination be documented? The project -level conformity documentation prepared by the project sponsor and the project -level conformity determination made by the FHWA Division Office can' be documented in a format that is consistent with other documents in the project files or Administrative Record. When appropriate, it is recommended that this project -level conformity determination be made in conjunction with the re-evaluation required under 23 CFR 771.129. 7. For a PM2.5 project -level conformity determination: that is not being made as part of the initial NEPA process for a project, how should the public involvement requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(e) be met? Section 93.105(e) of the conformity regulations state that agencies shall "provide opportunity for public involvement in conformity determinations for projects where otherwise required by law." :However, the regulations do not contain specific requirements for the length of the public comment period. Consideration should be given to the scale and scope of the analysis supporting the project -level conformity determination when determining the length of the public comment period. Project sponsors must provide the opportunity for public review and comment of project- level conformity analyses for projects of air quality concern. The project• sponsor should' consult with the interagency partners to determine the extent of public involvement • necessary to meet 40 CFR 93.105(e). For projects that are not of air quality concern, a comment period is only required for project -level conformity determinations if such a comment period would have been required under NEPA. 8. As an option in advance of a project -level conformity determination that is not being made as part of the initial NEPA process for a project, if a list of projects that are not of air quality concern is made available for public review and comment, does this satisfy the public involvement requirements for later project - level conformity determinations? Yes. A list of projects that have been discussed through interagency consultation as not being of air quality concern could be made available to the public and meet the requirements of public involvement for project level conformity. If this option is selected, the projects would need to be specifically described and a short explanation of why the projects are not of air quality concern may be needed, as appropriate to allow for sufficient public comment. Interagency consultation should be used to determine the level of detail and the extent of public involvement necessary to meet 40 CFR 93.105(e) for the list of projects. 9. How must the MPO be involved in interagency consultation for project -level conformity determinations? Under 40 CFR 93.105, MPOs must be involved in the establishment of interagency consultation procedures for project -level conformity determinations. However, the extent of MPO involvement in any specific project -level determination is not defined by the transportation conformity regulation. Interagency consultation should be used to discuss the role of the MPO in project -level conformity determinations. In addition, MPO data may be valuable in hot -spot analyses, especially regarding regional transportation and traffic conditions and emissions. 10. Are the examples in the preamble to the March 10, 2006 rule (71 FR 12491) the only projects that are of air quality concern or can other cases apply? The examples in the preamble are not exclusive and are not intended to cover all cases. If a particular project does not fit any of the examples, interagency consultation should be used to determined if the project is of air quality concern as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). 11. What percentage of total trucks should be considered diesel trucks? Can total trucks be used instead? As discussed in the preamble to the March 10, 2005 rule (71 FR 12491), PM2.5 and PM10 hot -spot analyses are targeted to projects that involve a significant number of or a significant increase in diesel vehicles. In areas where truck volume data may not easily be disaggregated, total truck volumes could be used. Interagency consultation should be used to discuss data and the appropriate way to categorize diesel vehicles. 12. For the example of 125,000 AADT and 8%diesel trucks, is this the existing levels, the open -to -traffic levels, or the design year levels? The example could apply to any of these scenarios. In some cases, there may be existing violations which must not be worsened, so the existing traffic levels may be applicable. As discussed in the preamble to the July 1, 2004 rule (69 FR 40057), the hot -spot analysis should examine the year(s) during the time frame of the plan in which project emissions, in addition to background regional emissions in the project area, are expected to be the highest. In some cases, this may be when the project opens to traffic, but in other cases may be the design year or another year where peak emissions are anticipated. 13. One of the examples of a "project of air quality concern" from the preamble to the March 10, 2006 rule (71 FR 12491) is "a project on a new highway or expressway that serves a significant volume of diesel truck traffic, such as facilities with greater than 125,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) and 8°/a or more of such AADT is diesel truck traffic." This amounts to a truck AADT of 10,000. Could a project on a new highway that has a truck AADT of 10,000 also be an example of a "project of air quality concern," regardless of the total AADT or percentage of diesel trucks? Yes. A project that has a truck AADT of 10,000 would also be an example of a "project of air quality concern." For example, a project may have a diesel truck percentage less than 8%, but the over AADT is higher than 125,000, resulting in over 10,000 diesel truck AADT. Also, a project may have an AADT less than 125,000, but a truck percentage over 8%, resulting in over 10,000 diesel truck AADT. It is important to note that the examples were included in the preamble to the March 10, 2006 final rule to illustrate a typical project of air quality concern. The numbers included in the examples should not be interpreted as required thresholds. 14. Would any nonexempt project on a facility with 125,000 AADT and 8% diesel trucks be a "project of air quality concern," or would only a project that significantly increased the number of diesel vehicles on such a facility be a "project of air quality concern?" As discussed in the examples in the preamble to the March 10, 2006 rule (71 FR 12491), 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i) should be interpreted as applying only to projects that would involve a significant increase in the number of diesel transit busses and diesel trucks on an existing highway facility. The example of 125,000 AADT and 8% diesel trucks is intended for new facilities, not as an example of a "significant increase." This is consistent with 93.123(b)(1)(iv) which defines projects of air quality concern based on a significant increase the number of diesel vehicles due to terminal or transfer project expansion. A "significant increase" in the number of diesel transit busses and diesel trucks under either 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(ii) or (iv) would need to be determined through interagency consultation. PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis Project Summary for Interagency Consultation 1The purpose of this form is to provide sufficient information to allow the Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) to determine if a project requires a project -level PM hot spot analysis pursuant to Federal Conformity Regulations. The form is not required under the following circumstances: 1. The project sponsor determines that a project -level PM hot spot analysis is required or otherwise elects to perform the analysis; or 2. The project does not require a project -level PM hot spot analysis since it: a. Is exempt pursuant to 40 CFR 93.126; or b. Is a traffic signal synchronization project under 40 CFR 93.128; or c. Uses no Federal funds AND requires no Federal approval; or d. Is located in a Federal PM attainment area (note: PM10 and PM2.5 areas differ). Projects other than those listed above may or may not need a project -level PM hot spot analysis depending on whether it is considered a "Project of Air Quality Concern" (POAQC), and should be brought before the TCWG for a determination. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to ensure that the form is filled out completely and provides a sufficient level of detail for the TCWG to make an informed decision on whether or not a project requires a project -level PM hot spot analysis. For example, the TCWG will be reviewing the effects of the project, and thus part of the required information includes build/no build traffic data. It is also the responsibility of the project sponsor to ensure a representative is available to discuss the project at the TCWG meeting if necessary. !Instructions: 11) Fill out form in its entirety. j2) Be sure to include MPO ID#. See http://scaq.ca.gov/rtip/ if necessary. 13) Submit completed form to your local Transportation Commission who will submit it to the MPO. i jThe TCWG meets the fourth Tuesday of each month at SCAG Headquarters, 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Participation is also available via teleconference. Call (213) '236-1800 prior to meeting to get the call -in number and pass -code. Forms must be submitted by the second Tuesday of the month to be considered at that month's TCWG meeting. • • PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis — Project Summary for Interagency Consultation Project Description from TIP, RTP, and/or project documents RTIP ID#: 'Type of project see list below County: Narrative Location/Route & Postmiles: Caltrans Projects — EA#: Lead Agency: Contact Person Phone# Fax# Email ;Decision Desired Check appropriate box below PM2.5 MAYBE Project of Air Quality Concern NOT Project of Air Quality ' Concern PM10 MAYBE Project of Air Quality Concern NOT Project of Air Quality Concern Federal Action for which PM Analysis is Needed Check appropriate box and describe in Comments below Categorical Exclusion (NEPA) EA or Draft EIS FONSI or Final EIS PS&E or Construction Other Scheduled Date of Federal Action: 'Current Programmin Dates as appropriate PE/Environmental ENG ROW CON Start ' I I End Project Purpose and Need (Summary): Attach additional sheets as necessary Surrounding Land Use/Traffic Generators (especially effect on diesel traffic) Build and No Build LOS, AADT, %trucks, truck AADT of proposed facility (opening year) Build and No Build LOS, AADT, % trucks, truck AADT of proposed facility (RTP horizon year or design year) PM 10/2.5 Conformity Hot Spot Project Summary Form Continued on next page If facility is an interchange(s) or intersection(s), Build and No Build cross -street AADT, % trucks, truck AADT (opening year) If facility is an interchange (s) or intersection(s), Build and No Build cross -street AADT, % trucks, truck AADT (RTP horizon year): Describe potential traffic redistribution effects of congestion relief Comments/Explanation/Details Attach additional sheets as necessary; include narrative reason why POAQC or Not POAQC decision is appropriate TYPE OF PROJECT: New state highway New regionally significant street New interchange Intersection channelization Roadway realignment Bus, rail, or inter -modal facility/terminal/transfer point Truck weight/inspection station At or affects location identified in the SIP as a site of actual or possible violation of NAAQS Change to existing state highway Change to existing regionally significant street Reconfigure existing interchange Intersection signalization REFERENCE: Criteria for Projects of Air Quality Concern (40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)) — PMio and PM16 Hot Spots New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles; Projects affecting intersections that are at Level -of -Service D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to Level -of -Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic . volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project; New bus and rail terminals and transfer points than have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the PMI0 or PM2.5 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. • Version: 6/13/2006 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 19, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the TAC receive and file this item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects are programmed in the 2006 STIP as identified in the attachment. Three projects are programmed in the 2006 STIP for construction in Fiscal Year 2006/07. These projects should have approved 'environmental documents and in the design phase. As previously indicated, TE projects that are ready for their allocations prior to the year they are programmed can request an advance allocation. Projects that are not ready for their allocation in the year programmed can ask for one-time extension, with the maximum time of twelve months. The extension request must demonstrate the delay of the project was due to circumstances beyond their control. Approvals of extension requests are not guaranteed. If the California Transportation Commission (CTC) determines that the reason for the request is not justified, they will simply deny the request and the funds would lapse into a future year (last two years of the STIP cycle). If a TE project in Riverside County cannot be delivered in the year programmed, the local agency must inform RCTC staff as soon as possible. We would determine if the local agency can delivery the project within 12 months. If so, an extension request will be prepared and submitted to the CTC. If not, we will review the current programming to determine if the project can be reprogrammed in the next year or two if capacity is available as a result of another project being advanced or delayed. I • TE PROGRAMMING Agency Project TE Funds Local Match (000's) Total Project Cost Riverside Co Santa Ana River Bike Tr $ 1,416 $ 3,868 $ 5,284 Perris Perris Gateway $ 425 $ 1,325 $ 1,750 Beaumont Historic San Timoteo Bike a& Ped $ 1,416 $ 1,187 $ 2,603 Corona Downtown Enh & Beautification $ 1,416 $ 5,484 $ 6,900 Moreno Valley Sunnymead Blvd Median Enh $ 1,416 $ 2,674 $ 4,090 Corona E Sixth Street $ 1,416 $ 1,584 $ 3,000 Palm Desert Monterey Av/I-10 on/off ramps $ 378 $ 422 $ 800 Riverside Alessandro Median landscaping $ 944 $ 1,056 $ 2,000 Riverside SR60/Market IC landscaping $ 472 $ 528 $ 1,000 RTA Perris Multi -modal Transit Center $ 1,352 $ 3,914 $ 5,266 Temecula Winchester Rd/SR79 $ 1,133 $ 1,252 $ 2,385 Palm Desert Monterey Av/Dinah Shore landsc. $ 567 $ 633 $ 1,200 RCTC Greenway Corridor, Perris Val line $ 1,113 $ 1,245 $ 2,358 San Jacinto Francisco Estudillo Heritage Enh $ 472 $ 178 $ 650 La Quinta Jefferson St Beautification $ 445 $ 199 $ 644 Cathedral City Cath Cyn Dr/Terrace Bike & Ped $ 445 $ 152 $ 597 Indio Hwy 111 Enhancements $ 1,416 $ 684 $ 2,100 Palm Springs Gene Autry Gateway landscap. $ 1,375 $ 845 $ 2,220 $ 17,617 $ 27,230 $ 44,847 Old TEA 21: Hemet Calimesa Norco Cath City Old TEA 21 Total: SAFETEA LU and Old TEA 21 2006 STIP TE Programming: TE STIP PROGRAMMING Eligibility App Date FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Con Start 1416 pending 425 Jun-07 pending 3/16/2006 1416 4/18/2006 1416 Jun-07 1/24/2006 1416 4/18/2006 2/15/2006 944 1/24/2006 472 Dec-06 1/24/2006 1352 3/16/2006 1133 1/24/2006 2/15/2006 1113 1/24/2006 472 pending 1/24/2006 445 Feb-07 445 1/24/2006 1416 1/24/2006 1375 1/24/2006 917 9019 3904 1416 0 SAFETEA TE Totals 520 312 312 520 624 0 0 0 1437 9643 3904 1416 0 1209 6378 4578 4106 2544 Prepared by medina 6/13/2006 Page 1 ... • /~ INITIAL CITY TAC MEMBER ~ BANNING 99 E. Ramsey St., DUANE BURK Banning 92220-0998 Director of Public Works BEAUMONT -""n E. 6th St., JOHN WILDER ~ Beaumont 92223 Assistant Director of Public Works -BLYTHE ¥ 440 S. Main St., JIM RODKEY Blythe 92225 Public Works Director v CVAG 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 200, Palm Desert 92260 ALLYN WAGGLE CALIMESA P. 0. Box 1190, Calimesa 92320 CAL TRANS ):y 464 W. 4th St., 6th Fl., San Bernardino 92401-1400 SEAN YEUNG CANYON LAKE {kS 31516 Railroad Canyon Rd., HABIB MOTLAGH Canyon Lake 92587 Contract City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City 92234 BILL BAYNE COACHELLA 1515 West Sixth Street, Coachella 92236 BILL GALLEGOS ~ ~~ CORONA tcMAB QA'Fl'AN !4ee-s0utti Vicentia Ave. Public Works Director Corona 92882 Public Works Department DESERT HOT 16 SPRINGS -65-950 DAN PATNEAUDE Pierson Blvd., Desert Assistant City Engineer ~ , Hot Springs 92240 Engineering Department \...7 TELEPHONE 951-922-3130 951-769-8520 760-922-6611 x227 760-346-1127 909-795-9801 909-383-4030 951-943-6504 760-770-0360 760-398-57 44 951-736-2236 760-329-6411 X243 TAC.NIN JUNE 19, 2006 FAX E-MAIL 951-922-3141 dburk@ci.banning.ca.us 951-769-8526 ulcjohn1@aol.com 760-922-0278 jwrjr@gte.net 760-340-5949 awaggle@cvag.org 909-795-4399 909-383-4129 sean_yeung@dot.ca.gov 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net 760-202-1460 bbayne@cathedralcity.gov ·-760-398-1630 bgallegos@coachella.org 951-736-2496 amadq@ci.corona.ca.us 760-288-0651 dpatneaude@ci.desert-hot-springs.ca.us ( • ALTERNATE AL TERNA TE E-MAIL {3.t,1f.>.,...) 4,..lt~ Kahono Oei citybanning@hotmail.com Chad Aaby Acting City Engineer caaby@cityofblythe.ca.gov Carol Clapper cclapper@cvag.org Bill Mosby william_a_mosby@dot.ca.gov ~\c. ~ ~~~ Leslie Grosjean lgrosjean@cathedralcity.gov Tony Lucero Senior Civil Engineer Department of Public Works tlucero@coachella.org . -'\ Ned Ibrahim I Ass1s1an1 t'Uum; nu1 ~s Director ned.ibrahim@ci.corona.ca.us Ryan Duarte Associate Engineer 6/14/2006 • CITY TAC MEMBER HEMET ~ 510 E. Florida Avenue Hemet 92543 MIKE GOW '\ ;t INDIAN WELLS 44-950 Eldorado Dr., TIM WASSIL Indian Wells Public Works Director/City Engineer 92210-7497 Public Works Department HJ-t INDIO 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio 92202 AMIR MODARRESSI LA QUINTA 9-~ P.O.Box 1504, 78-495 Calle Tampico, TIMOTHY JONASSON La Quinta 92253 Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE ELSINORE KENSEUMALO 130 South Main St., City Engineer Lake Elsinore 92530 Community Development Department tJY MORENO VALLEY ~~;i11~·a (e;e! P.O.Box 88005, TFaRs13e11alion Managed f"'U·t Wr-~ Moreno Valley 92552-0805 -· -·--. C.'t, ~·~,... --.... .. , ,_, ..... -··.., (h) MURRIETA 26442 Beckman Court, JIM KINLEY Murrieta 92562 Director of Public Works/City Engineer NORCO 2870 Clark Ave., P.O.Box 428, BILL THOMPSON Norco 92860-0428 Director of Public Works PALM DESERT /!lid J'/!. 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert 92260-MARK GREENWOOD V"' 2578 Director of Public works PALM SPRINGS 3200 T ahquitz Canyon DAVE BARAKIAN Way, Director of Public Works/ Palm Springs 92262 City Engineer PVVTA 125 West Murphy St., LES NELSON Blythe 92225 City Manager TELEPHONE 951-765-3712 76(}.776-0237 760-342-6530 760-777-7042 951-674-3124 x244 i>rtdtJ-/ 310$"' 951-41~ 951-461-6077 951-270..5607 760-776-6450 760..323-8253 76()..922-6161 TAC.NIN JUNE 19, 2006 FAX E-MAIL 951-765-2493 mgow@cityofhemet.org 760-346-0407 twassil@cityofindianwells.org 76()..342-6556 amir@indio.org 76()..777-7155 tjonasson@la-quinta.org 951-674-2392 kseumalo@lak~lsinore.org cJ. ... £. \14!."""°"'c.(. 0 ... ,, ~~3.Jl5a QF8i!Jl'l@!Me II I!)= 951-698-4509 jkinley@murrieta.org 951-27()..5622 bthompson@ci.norco.ca.us 760-341-7098 mgreenwood@ci.palm-desert.ca.us 760-322-8325 DaveB@ci.palm-springs.ca.us 760..922-4938 lnelson@cityofblythe.ca.gov • ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E·MAIL Linda Nixon Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II bbaker@cityofindianwells.org Jim Smith jsmith@indio.org f\11\~t..k~~ ~ l<..\L. \\\\l.'V.~~ IA~\~ .... w~0 .c.~ Ed Basubas Senior Civil Engineer ebasubas@lake-elsinore.org Crtf,.' . NC&L siectw.-c...c. j Al ij.~_.,). "'""j Russ Napier Capital Improvement Program Manager rnapier@murrieta.org Lori Askew Associate Engineer Laskew@ci.norco.ca.us Ryan Gayler/Phil Joy Marcus Fuller 6/14/2006 -(AS ~ l,~ -rJr3 v {AS C' <.~t_., .. Jsi/ r • CITY TAC MEMBER PERRIS 101 North 'D' St., AHMAD ANSARI Perris 92570 Public Works Director ~ L.Dtzi:'L,,L§ MC 1825 Third St., MARI< SlANbEY Plt<ru....:t~ Riverside 92517-1968 D1rmor of l'la1111i11g ~ y '{-RANCHO MIRAGE 69-825 Highway 111, BRUCE HARRY Rancho Mirage 92270 Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD 3900 Main St., Deputy Public Works Director/ Riverside 92522 City Engineer GEORGE JOHNSON RIVERSIDE COUNTY Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon St., Transportation and Land Management Riverside 92501 Agency JUAN PEREZ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Deputy Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon St., Transportation and Land Management Riverside 92501 Agency SAN JACINTO TELEPHONE 951-943-6100x237 TAC.NIN JUNE 19, 2006 FAX E-MAIL 951-943-8591 aansari@cityofperris.org e--t;{;.e S--$} (r~ t*5Jv/ iniee@ ~~·ver61dcfr6'q1U(t:tffeiY\ 951-565-5130 951-565-5131 mstanley@riversidetransit.com 760-770-3224 760-770-3261 bruceh@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us 951-826-5575 951-826-5542 TBoyd@riversideca.gov 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 GJohnson@rctlma.org 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us • ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL ~<'\c. ~~ua~ Habib Motlagh c;o, \\{II\ Contract City Engineer trilake@adelphia.net -Mike McCoy Senior Planner Planning Department mmccoy@riversidetransit.com Randy Viegas Project Manager randyv@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us Siobhan Foster sfoster@riversideca.gov Juan Perez Deputy Di rector of Transportation jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us George Johnson Director of Transportation GJohnson@rctlma.org e{\c... s~.J 201 E. Main St., HABIB MOTLAGH ~s¥-O.~s4 @s~)CLt\"'-~ ca.. 1 San Jacinto 92583 Contract City Engineer 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net AS()-\. EM' o.s SUN LINE ...., 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms EUNICELOVI 92276 Director of Planning 760-343-3456 X119 760-343-3845 elovi@sunline.org TEMECULA BILL HUGHES Ron Parks 43200 Business Park Director of Public Works/City Engineer Deputy Public Works Dr., Temecula 92590 Public Works Department 951-694-6411 951-694-6475 bill .hughes@cityoftemecula.org Director IWKt;Uu 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501 RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER 951-955-8304 951-787-7991 berger@wrcog.cog.ca.us ~\ P.Ob ~"-"':t l)P.~~~k4b.S ~({fA2 ·'t'(k:> f~-.'""'°*2 e UP-f>M>'-,a.4 ~s fiJJlt-V Uht ()ff~Sfr-~ 7bo 3'i.7Sz.t;3 ~~-~~~-s--r"'"f!J~·~·US .,.Avt.. fl> .FAt;.A,.J CAt.rA.A-"'S b ~r ~ C 1dCl)J <fl -~'lo l-p~--r:,~@~·ccc.jo-t A\\C\CA.., Q,c \blA.rvl C<l \ trtlnS p;s-t ~ ( qoq) 38 3 -wq 0q Cl. \ic.,liN_ 00 11-lt\ vV)@ clo+. ctt. <Jov 6/14/2006