HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 17, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee77409
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MEETING AGENDA*
10:00 A.M.
July 17, 2006
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
Conference Room A, 3`d Floor
•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
TIME:
'DATE:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
10:00 A.M.
July 17, 2006
;LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
Conference Room A, Third Floor
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.
CALL TO ORDER
SELF -INTRODUCTION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
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. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS (Attachment)
• Eminent Domain
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 17, 2006
Page 2
6 REPORT ON BOND MEASURE WORKSHOP (Attachment)
7 REPORT ON PROJECT DELIVERY SUBCOMMITTEE (Attachment)
• June 29th Meeting .
8. • LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT — (Verbal Presentation)
• Deobligation of Inactive Projects
9. PM 2.5 UPDATE AND CONFORMITY FORM FEEDBACK (Attachment)
10. 2007 RTP UPDATE: NEXT STEPS
11. RTIP UPDATE
• Status of 2006 RTIP
• Overview of Amendment 01 to 2006 RTIP
12. JULY 2006 MILESTONE REPORTS UPDATE
13. OTHER BUSINESS
14. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be August 21, 2006; 10:00.A.M. in
Banning.) .
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, June 19, 2006
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
Banning City Hall Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA.
2. Self -Introductions
Members Present: Ahmad Ansari, City of Perris
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Ed Basubas, City of Lake Elsinore
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Leslie Grosjean, City of Cathedral City
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
Ned Ibrahim, City of Corona
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta
Phil Joy, City of Palm Desert
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Eunice Lovi, SunLine
Mike McCoy, Riverside Transit Agency
Amir Modarressi, City of Indio
Lorelle Moe, Riverside Transit Agency
Russ Napier, City of Murrieta
Nick Nickerson, City of La Quinta
Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe
Eric Skaugset, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, & San
Jacinto
Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Sean Yeung, Caltrans
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 2
Others Present:
Alicia Colburn, Caltrans District 8
Paul Fagan, Caltrans District 8
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Eric Haley, RCTC
Ken Lobeck, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Paul Rodriguez; Urban Crossroads
3 Approval of Minutes
Minutes approved.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. FFY 2005/06 OBLIGATION PLAN UPDATE
Ken Lobeck, RCTC, provided the RCTC TAC Version of the FFY 2005/06
Obligation Plan. . Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that the document was
updated to reflect the projects that will not obligate by the end of FFY
2005/06 (by September• 30th). Projects listed in red on the list are being
moved to FFY 06/07. The updates for these projects indicate that they
should obligate their federal funds during the. first quarter of •FY 2006/07. A
key obligation delay factor has been the DBE program changes.
The revised estimated total RSTP/CMAQ obligations have decreased - to
$14.867 million. The AB 1012 requirement is to obligate about $12.5
million of RSTP by November 1" with •approximately $30 million total of
RSTP and CMAQ needed to be obligated together. Shirley stated that the
best way to secure the funds for those projects that will not be obligated is
by loaning the funds to other counties. RCTC is .examining if a loan to San
Bernardino or Sacramento counties can occur to prevent a potential fund
lapse. Furthercomplicating the obligation problem is that an amendment
2006 RTIP will, have to be accomplished •to shift ;the CMAQ .or RSTP from
the prior obligated year .(FFY 05/06) into theactive year prior to obligation
approval.
Sean Yeung, Caltrans, added that the deadline for submitting final FFY 05/06
obligation requests will be about July 30th. He stated that the time to
complete all required actions and receive obligationapproval before
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
tJune 19, 2006
Page 3
September 30th has accelerated the deadline from the traditional August 15`h
date to the end of July.
Eric Haley, RCTC, commented that recently the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) is taking a hard-line towards granting multiple fund
allocation extensions. He cited a project in Los Angeles County as an
example. He stated that the CTC is not pleased with requests to extend
fund allocation deadlines and not to expect much sympathy from the CTC in
the future.
Shirley Medina added that she attended a teleconference meeting with
Caltrans Headquarters Local Assistance anda prevalent feeing expressed
was that the end of July obligation deadline may not be not enough time for
them to process and approve the obligation request. She encouraged TAC
members to submit their obligation request to Local Assistance by July 1' if
possible.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) REGARDING PROJECT
DELIVERY AND ISSUES RESOLUTION
Ms. Medina indicated that staff has been working with the TAC
Subcommittee in developing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
among all the agencies, TAC members, District 8 and RCTC. She circulated
the MOU and stated that it is a first step in defining roles and
responsibilities. She pointed out the Document Review Timelines table on
the fourth page of the MOU that is key. It is a general concept of what
should be expected and the goals that staff is trying to meet.
She stated that in the final document the third line of the timelines table for
PA&ED for state highway projects has been deleted to focus on the Local
Assistance responsibilities. PA&ED for state highway projects will be
handled under specific project charters or cooperative agreements. She
further stated that Local Assistance clarified that the;PS&E is not really. an
approval but is more or less a certification, which is. also lined •out on the
final document. She circulated the final document for review and signature
by the TAC members. Those members not in attendance will be asked to
sign their signature block and send it to RCTC.
Shirley Medina indicated that the TAC Subcommittee requested that Caltrans
provide workshops and training on the PES form and Section 106 processes.
Caltrans has been asked to provide a date, sometime in the August
timeframe. The training may be at Caltrans District 8 or at RCTC offices.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 4
On the state highway side, key issues are being discussed. A meeting with
Paul Engstrom and his staff is scheduled for June 29 and progress will be
reported to the TAC. Ms. Medina stressed that staff is here to assist with
any problems getting projects through.
7. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT
Sean Yeung, Caltrans Local Assistance, introduced Alicia Colburn, Caltrans
District 8 Senior Environmental Planner, who will be involved in ` local
assistance projects at the environmental stage.
Sean indicated that a project tracking system is being developed, and
because of the focus of their work is on obligations, he expects to have the
system finalized in the fall. Sean also stressed the need to update project
status for those projects on the "Inactive Project List".
Shirley Medina stated that if there are any projects on the inactive list and
the project has been completed, it should be closed out since Federal
Highways is monitoring to make sure projects are closed out. if it is not
closed out, Federal Highways would be able to request that the funds be
repaid.
2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE
Ken Lobeck, provided a reformatted grade separation plan and explained the
various columns. He requested that each agency look at the listing and
make sure that nothing is missing. He pointed out that not every grade
separation is on the list, but reflects the Alameda Corridor East grade
separation projects.
9. REGIONAL TUMF PROJECT STATUS UPDATE
Shirley Medina provided a document, "TUMF Regional Arterial Program
Progress Report" and stated that this was included on the Consent Calendar
of the June Commission meeting and that it will be included in the
Commission agenda every other month with the next being' September. The
document indicates the number of agreements that have been signed, how
many are in process and those that are coming forward. In response to Tom
Boyd's question, Ms. Medina indicated that RCTC should be notified when
construction starts on projects. She stated that when agencies have PDT
meetings they should let staff know so that theminutes may be reviewed.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 5
10. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) AND
AMENDMENT PROGRAMMING ADJUSTMENTS
Ken Lobeck provided a presentation outlining some of the changes in the
RTIP beginning with amendment 01 to the 2006 RTIP. He stated that FHWA
considers the number of amendments Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) submitted in the 2004 RTIP excessive and will limit SCAG to
quarterly amendments starting with the 2006 RTIP. He explained the
differences between formal and administrative amendments along with
allowable changes that can be made within each category. He noted that
scope changes, changing the modeling year, or attempting to add scope
elements that require modeling can't be made through an amendment.
These types of changes can only be made through the biennial RTIP update
which is wrapping up for the 2006 RTIP:
Ken described the allowable changes for administrative amendments include
lead agency changes, extremely minor description clarifications, fund shifts
among phases as long as the total cost does not change, fund swaps, and
cost changes that are below 20% and $2 million of the total project cost. He
described how an administrative amendment is processed and the
approximate time for approvals. The good news for administrative
amendments is they do not require a conformity review, a public review
period, and FHWA approval. Caltrans HQ approves administrative
amendments. This translates to about two months for an administrative
amendment to be approved from the time SCAG receives it.
Formal amendments differ from administrative amendments in'• that they
require a determination that no impact to the conformity finding has
occurred, must include a mandatory 30 day public review period, require a
formal update to the RTIP financial plan, and require FHWA's approval.
These added steps extend the approval time to approximately four to six
months once SCAG receives the amendment.
Ken concluded the presentation by explaining that prior to .adding a new
capacity enhancing project in the RTIP, SCAG must confirm that the project
is included in the current RTP. If it is not, SCAG must accomplish an RTP
amendment which could take up to five months. Ken stated that the project
as listed in the RTP will be examined to determine if consistency exists in
four primary areas that include the project limits, scope, costs, and
implementation timing. If a significant discrepancy exists, SCAG' will have to
accomplish the necessary RTP amendment prior to allowing the project to be
added to the current RTIP.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 6
11. PM 2.5 PROJECT LEVEL CONFORMITY AND HOT SPOT ANALYSES
SUMMARY
Ken Lobeck provided an overview of the new PM 2.5 analysis requirement
that will impact projects requiring federal approval actions. He provided TAC
members a copy of the draft 2006 RTIP Local Highways project list that also
identifies if the project is initially subject to the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis
requirement. The PM 2.5 analysis requirement applies currently only to
projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Presently, the PM 2.5 analysis
requirement does not apply to projects in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB).
Ken explained that the PM 2.5 analysis requirement took effect as of April
2006 and no. "grandfathered" period had been established by EPA. Over the
last month CTCs, Caltrans, and SCAG have been working with FHWA and
EPA to establish a process to review potential projects of air quality concern
(POAQC) and how to determine if they are not a POAQC.
The initial process for a POAQC review involves submitting a project
conformity review form to SCAG for discussion among FHWA, EPA, and
Caltrans HQ at the SCAG Transportation Conformity Work Group.(TCWG). A
copy of the current conformity review form was included in the TAC agenda.
A key part of the form is to provide the change in diesel truck traffic.
emissions that will result from the project. Ken stressed that the project
sponsor is responsible for completing the form plus ensuring that a qualified
person attends the SCAG TCWG and is prepared to discuss the project and
answer questions if necessary.
A question was raised if .the PM 2.5 analysis requirement applied to locally
funded projects. \ Ken replied thathis understanding from FHWA is that
projects that are 1.00% locally funded, do not. require NEPA, only CEQA is
required, are not regionally significant and have no federal approvals of any
kind are not subject to the PM 2.5 analysis requirement. Ken added that if
the project clearly falls into 40 CFR 93.126, Table 2 (exempt projects from
regional. modeling analysis) or 40 CPR 93.128 (signal synchronization
projects), then the project should not be a POAQC and not subject to the PM
2.5 analysis requirement.
Ken added that the CFR tables are included. with the RTIP Local Highways
System project list handout. He stated that a gray area exists for those
projects that fall into 40 CFR 93.127. Hecited new ' signals and
channelization as . category examples which are exempt . from regional
modeling analysis, but initially subject to the PM 2.5 analysis requirement
until determined not to be a POAQC. Ken remarked that over time as these
iTechnical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 7
types are determined not to be a POAQC through review determinations,
sufficient history may emerge to easily qualify the projects early not as
POAQCs and avoid review determinations altogether. However, until a
sufficient history evolves for FHWA, these types of projects must complete a
review determination through the SCAG interagency consultation process.
Ken concluded the discussion that everyone should consider the RTIP Local
Highways System project list handout as a starting point. If a project is
identified as subject to the PM 2.5 requirement, yet the project sponsor
believes the project is not a POAQC, then they should complete the
conformity review form and submit the Local Highways System project to
Ken at RCTC. Projects with proposed. environmental documents sign -off
dates over the next six months or about ready to obligate their federal funds
are the highest priority for requesting a conformity review through the SCAG
TCWG. If the project is on the State Highway System, Ken indicated that the
conformity review form should be sent to Paul Fagan at Caltrans District 8
Program Management.
12. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
Shirley Medina provided a TE Programming list to the TAC and reminded all
that the TE projects are part of 2006 STIP which will require CTC approval
to allocate funds. She requested a revised schedule from Beaumont and
Palm Desert. She stated that there are three projects. that are going forward
in FY 2006/07 as follows:
• Riverside — SR60/Market IC landscaping
• La Quinta — Jefferson Street Beautification
• Hemet — Old TEA 21
The above projects may start requesting their TE allocation in July or up to
April 2007 to get it on the CTC. agenda for allocation. She stressed that if
the allocation request for construction cannot be made, a 12-month
extension maybe granted by the CTC. Otherwise, it will have to be
reprogrammed into a future year. She asked that agencies contact her if
issues are already known that may prevent allocation.
13. JUNE 14, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS
Eric Haley, RCTC, stated that there was an item on the consent calendar
pulled that was of interest to Banning and Beaumont. Commissioner Terry
Henderson, who heads the Transit Committee, expressed interest in the
merger discussions between Banning and Beaumont, which led to a brief
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 8
discussion concerningfinancing and planning of minor financial costs that
are currently not covered by agreement.
Goods movement was discussed which led into a meeting with Senator
Feinstein's staff. About 25 people met in Los Angeles on Friday. There is
forward motion on the goods movement issue, probably around the idea of
financing with tax credit bonds. Another meeting is being scheduled in
northern California in July and the Senator will be here to sign in middle
August. Federal legislation is being aimed at grade separation and capacity
issues.
The Perris Valley Line was discussed and theapplication for that is going to
FTA this week. $30 million in the STIP has already been committed; to it.
A final discussion on the Mid County Parkway was held with the City of
Perris over alignments and conflicts within the city council regarding which
alignments should go where. He expects progress regarding preferred
corridors.
Mr. Haley said that regarding Riverside Orange County Authority (ROCA), an
MOU was created between water districts in order to access federal funds.
Discussion was held with MWD to do the geotechnical work on the Riverside
Orange County CETAP corridor. A Memorandum of Understanding was
signed to do the work but MWD decided to do it alone and they are not
concerned about the federal funding anymore.
The 2006 CMP was also approved and the TAC will receive copies shortly.
14. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Haley indicated that RCTC will respond to CSAC's request for data.
Shirley Medina will send the survey request to the TAC. CSAC is looking
for a realistic needs assessment statewide county -by -county needs,
including cities, for rehabilitation and maintenance to try to set up the
equivalent of a local SHOPP program.
The annual retreat will be September 14 and 15, scheduled in Temecula but
could be in La Quinta.
Ms. Medina said that currently the agendas are mailed and e-mailed to the
TAC and included on RCTC's website, but RCTC's goal is to eliminate
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 9
excess paperwork. Therefore, staff is considering eliminating mailing the
hard copies of agendas. It will still be e-mailed and included on the website.
15. 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 July 17, 2006, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Riverside County Regional Complex, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside, CA, Conference Room A, Third Floor.
Respectfully submitted,
/fl d ,m
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
AGENDA ITEM 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Aaron Hake, Staff Analyst - Government Relations.
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Public Affairs Director
SUBJECT:
California Ballot Initiative Update: Eminent Domain
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive and file as an information item.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In June 2005 the United States Supreme Court affirmed in the landmark Kelo v.
City of New London, CT that the power of eminent domain could indeed be used to
transfer privately ownedland from one private owner to another for the purposes
of economic development. The Court ruled that thepublic benefits of economic
growth are a constitutionally permitted "public use" to justify the taking of private
property under the Fifth Amendment.
The Kelo decision made headlines .across the country and private property rights
advocates harshly criticized the High Court's ruling. Detractors of the decision
expressed concern over the government's ability to condemn land and then use it
for a purpose where a private entity is making a profit and the correlation to a
public benefit is indirect, at best. However, the Court's opinion allovved
opportunity for the states to take up the issue. Through an effort bankrolled by a
New York millionaire, property rights interests in California have responded with a
ballot initiative that has qualified for the November 7, 2006 General Election.
If approved by the voters, this initiative will have multiple significant impacts on
local agencies' ability to use eminent domain, and may affect transportation
projects, including projects under construction or completed.
THE "PROTECT OUR HOMES ACT" (Prop 90)
Also known as the "Anderson Initiative," after one of the initiative's sponsors, the
"Protect Our Homes Act" is a State Constitutional Amendment that will go into
effect with a. simple majority approval from California voters this November. The
official ballot title given to the initiative by the Secretary of State is, "Government
Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property Initiative Constitutional Amendment." It
will appear on the ballot as •Proposition 90. The act issimilar to a pair of
constitutional amendments proposed in the state legislature last year which died in
their original committees.
Prop. 90 limits the use of eminent domain to "projects of public use" such as road
construction, the creation of parks, and zoning. Under the initiative's language;
governments cannot condemn private land for private use and claim as public use
on the grounds of economic development or tax ;revenue. However, private toll
roads and privately -owned prison facilities are mentioned as eligible public uses.
Additionally, the initiative requires that the property be used only for the stated
public use (e.g., if a city acquires property for road purposes., thecity may be
unable to use it for other unstated purposes such as sewer, water, or cable).
Another important impact of Prop. 90 is the immediate effect on pending eminent
domain court cases. The act will take effect instantly upon voter approval and will
apply to all eminent domain cases that have not been fully adjudicated, with the
potential consequence of sending many cases to re -trial in order to comply with the
new law. There are also vague provisions in the initiative that could render a vast
majority of past court opinions and orders on eminent domain cases null and void.
Further, the measure allows property owners to request a jury to determine'
"whether the taking is actually for a public use," as opposed to today's practice of
leaving such decisions to a judge.
Prop. 90 also makes changes to how property owners are compensated. Agencies
will be required to give the property owner copies of all. appraisals made on the
property, including appraisals upon which offers were never made. Rather than
valuing property based on the current use of the property, the act calls for property
to be valued according to the government's stated use for the property if that use
results in a higher value for the land. Generally ' speaking, Prop. '90 `adjusts
valuation and just compensation laws to favor property owners more so than
current statutes. '
The act contains many instances of language which, if passed by voters, could be
open to a broad range of legal interpretations by the courts. Thus, it is difficult to
assess the overall impact of this initiative until the results of the long line of
anticipated litigation related to the imprecise, undefined clauses in the act ". are
handed down by the courts. Legal experts are still assessing Prop. 90's language.
RCTC encourages city staffs to consult with their city attorneys on potential
interpretations.
Regardless, if the "Protect Our Homes Initiative" is to become law in November,
agencies would be well advised to be prepared for the immediate impacts on
eminent domain proceedings on transportation and other projects. The League of
California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California
Redevelopment Association are monitoring developments surrounding this proposed
constitutional amendment and can be utilized as resources on this issue. RCTC
staff will keep the Committee and members of the Commission informed as this
measure heads to the ballot.
More information is available from the California Secretary of State's website at:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/electionsj.htm#2006General
Attachment: Initiative Text
December 13, 2005
The Honorable Bill Lockyer
Attorney General, State of California
Office of the Attorney General
ATTN:Initiative Coordinator
1300 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear General Lockyer:
0,CEIVee)
DEC 2 12005
INITIATIVE COORDINATOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Pursuant to Elections Code §9002, I hereby request that your office prepare a title and
summary of the chief purpose and points of the attached proposed initiative measure. I
am registered to vote in the State of California at the address listed below. Included is
my check for $200 as required by §9002.
Thank xou.
Anita S. Anderson
Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall .be deprived of
property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private
property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just
compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have:
undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power
and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope •
of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local
governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in
the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts
have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting
statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions; laws, rules or regulations not related'
to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to
property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall"..
be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not
limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities,
land -use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise
arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain.
Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited
to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately -owned prison
facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use,
the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken
or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and
diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and
the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide
through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall
apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to.a
final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or
regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial
loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19
of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect
Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use
and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid
to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged forprivate
use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the
condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public
use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by
the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the_government assigns, contracts
or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent
domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this
subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property
or a beneficiary or an heir if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose,
shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property
before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a)
of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the
assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized
adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XIII A at the time "
the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following
commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release
to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just
compensation.
(b) For purpose, of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term
"publicpurpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in
transfers to non -governmental owners on economic "development or tax revenue
enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact,
even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of anypossessory
interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private
party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a
government assignment, contract or arran_gement with a private entity whereby
the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions,
the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4). In all eminent domain actions, prior to the_government's occupancy, a property
owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be
entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct
determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a
public use.
If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at
its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements
imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary
governmental purpose; then the property shall be valued at the use to which the
government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for
the land taken.
OA In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of
money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily,
without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just
compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all
reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred:
In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest
price the property would bring on the open market.
ft Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private
property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to
private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not
limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to
private property and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government
action' shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule
or regulation.
A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs
in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the
State of California, its political subdivisions agencies, any public or private
agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power
of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from
regulating public utility rates.
(d) Nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private`
property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate
nuisances such as blight, obseenity,sornogrnphy, hazardous substances or environmental
conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions
on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further
the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section
may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII.
3
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its
application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications
that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to
section 10(a) of Article II.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain
proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not
apply to any statrite, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in
effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private
property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in
effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue
to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both
serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance,
resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of
application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation
being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a
declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment
promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law,
rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The
question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is
subject to judicial review.
4
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Report on Bond Measure Workshop
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) held a workshop ,on June 27,
2006 to discuss the infrastructure bond package that will be considered by the
California voters this November. The CTC will play a primary role in the allocation
of specific funding categories and will begin to hold meetings to develop criteria
and establish guidelines for the following areas:
• Corridor and Mobility
• Performance Monitoring System
• State and Local Partnership
• Trade Corridor Infrastucture
• Public -Private Partnerships
RCTC staff will be actively participating in these meetings. If the bond measure
passes, the earliest funds could be available is July 1, 2007. Projects that will
receive bond funding must be ready for construction by December 31, 2012.
Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak stated that leveraging local funds should be
!considered as a criterion for project selection along with economic impacts and
project readiness.
;The Draft 2008 STIP Fund Estimate will also be released around the July
timeframe, which will provide a broader perspective of the amount of funding that
;will be available in the next few years. Although the bond measure passage poses
a great opportunity for additional funding, there is continuing concern over the
construction material cost increases and resource availability (e.g. aggregates,
asphalt, Portland cement, etc.).
,Attachment: Transportation Bond Summary
MARIAN BERGESON. Chair
JAMES C. GHIELMETTI. Vice Chair
BOB ALVARADO
JOHN CHALICER
JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY
R. IC LINDSEY
JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE
ESTEBAN E. TORRES
LARRY ZARIAN
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, Ex Ottcio
ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex OHicio
JOHN F. BARNA JR., Executive Director
June 14, 2006
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1120 N STREET, MS-52
P. O. BOX 942873
SACRAMENTO, 94273-0031
FAX (916) 653-2134
(916) 654-4245
hltp://womr.catc.ca.gov
ARNOLD SCNWARZENEGGER
GOVERNOR
Dear Transportation Partner
With the successful passage of an infrastructure bond package for consideration by the California voters
this November, a workshop will be conducted on June 27, 2006, from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. in conjunction
with a special meeting of the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The workshop, jointly
sponsored by the CTC and the California Department of Transportation, will be held at the Sheraton
Grand Hotel, 1230 J Street, Sacramento, California. A summary of the transportation bonds is attached.
The prospect of a successful bond initiative is good news for transportation. We need to develop
implementation strategies and processes to ensure that the bond funds, once approved, are put to work
as quickly as possible to reduce traffic congestion and improve our transportation infrastructure
statewide. This workshop is a critical first step necessary for the successful implementation of this
program over the next several years. Your input and participation at this workshop is essential to
ensure that all issues are identified, understood by all parties, and fully addressed as we move forward.
We look forward to your participation in the workshop.
Sincerely,
WILL KEMP pON ' l YOHN BARNA
Director Executive Director
California Department of Transportation California Transportation Commission
Attachment
c: Sunne Wright McPeak, Secretary
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Attachment
TRANSPORTATION BOND SUMMARY
The infrastructure bond is part of, and is, a direct result of the Governor's Strategic
Growth Plan announced in January 2006. The full bond package will be on the
November 2006 ballot for consideration by California voters.
The transportation portion of the bond package includes $19.9 billion for safety
improvements and repairs to State highways, upgrades to freeways to reduce
congestion, repairs to local streets and roads, improvements to the seismic safety
of local bridges, expansion of public transit, reduction of air pollution, and
improvements to anti -terrorism security at ports.
In addition, the package authorizes State and regional agencies to engage in
public -private partnerships to attract billions of dollars in private investment for
the development of transportation infrastructure in the State.
The package also includes protection of any future Proposition 42 transfers. It
would allow the State to borrow the money, but pay it back within three years. It
also would restrict the State to only two such transactions every ten years.
Finally, the package includes legislation to streamline the environmental process
while safeguarding environmental protections.
Specifically, the bond includes:
$4.5 billion to relieve congestion by expanding capacity, enhancing operations,
and improving travel times in high -congestion travel corridors.
$1.0 billion for improvements to 400 mules of State Route 99 through the State's
Central Valley.
$3.1 billion for infrastructure improvements to seaports, land ports of entry, and
airports; to relieve traffic congestion along major trade corridors; and to improve
freight rail facilities to enhance the movement of goods from port to marketplace.
Included in this amount is $1.0 billion for air quality improvements that will
achieve emission reductions from activities related to port operations and freight
movement. $100 million of the total will also be available for port, harbor, and
ferry terminal security improvements.
$200 million for school bus retrofit and replacement to reduce air pollution and to
reduce children's exposure to diesel exhaust.
Attachment
$2.0 billion to augment funds for the State Transportation Improvement Program,
a five-year program of capital improvements for State and regional transportation
projects.
$4.0 billion for capital improvements and fleet expansion to enhance public
transit, intercity and commuter rail, and waterborne transit. Projects include new
capital projects; safety and modernization improvements, capital service
enhancements, rehabilitation, and bus rapid transit improvements.
$1.0 billion for transit safety, security, and disaster response for projects that
provide increased protection against a security and safety threat and increase the
capacity of transit operations to move people, goods and emergency personnel, ,
and equipment in the preparation for and the aftermath of a disaster.
$1.0 billion in matching funds for counties that have raised local money for
transportation projects.
$125 million to provide matching funds to complete the seismic safety work
needed on local bridges, ramps, and overpasses.
$250 million for railroad crossings and the construction of bridges over rail lines.
$750 million for highway safety, rehabilitation, and pavement preservation
projects, including $250 million for traffic light synchronization projects or other
technology -based improvements to improve safety operations and the capacity of
local streets and roads.
$2.0 billion for improvements to local transportation facilities that will repair and
rehabilitate local streets and roads, reduce local traffic congestion, improve traffic
flow, orincreasetraffic safety.
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
!FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
!SUBJECT:
June 29, 2006 Project Delivery Subcommittee Meeting Report
'STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
'On June 29, 2006, the Project Delivery Subcommittee met with Paul Engstrom,
Deputy District Director, Program/Project Management, to discuss project delivery
issues on state highway projects. Mr. Engstrom presented a draft Project Charter
template that is attached. The purpose of the Project Charter is to provide the
project team (consisting of Ca!trans, Local Agency, and Consultants) with an
outline of the project that is agreed to at the onset of the project. The Purpose and
Need section will outline the intent of the project and the PDT will all agree to
move forward based on the information provided in the Project Charter including
schedules. Mr. Engstrom has asked that the TAC review and provide comments on
the attached draft.
Other issues discussed are summarized as follows:
;Document Reviews -
TAC members stressed that reviews are not consistent and are not done in a timely
lmanner. Mr. Engstrom emphasized that if project packages/submittals are
'complete this greatly reduces the review time. For example, if the traffic volumes
are not included in the traffic study, then the environmental staff has to repeat
;their review to incorporate the missing information. Mr. Engstrom also commented
'that local agencies that use local models that are consistent with the SCAG model
'have an easier time with traffic study reviews.
'Project Delivery Team Meetings -
One of the main issues regarding PDT meetings is that decisions are not
;documented or are not upheld. Another problem with PDT meetings is that
information is not shared prior to the meetings, and therefore, decisions are
delayed. Action items need to be completed prior to the meeting so that decisions
can be made at the meeting to move the project forward. Regular attendance must
also be emphasized.
It was also discussed that the Caltrans Project Managers should have more
authority so that one person at the District can make decisions to move the project
forward and eliminate contradictions between District staff.
i
In response to the TAC's concern Mr. Engstrom reported that the District is
'working on the following items that are aimed at alleviating some of the issues the
;TAC raised:
• Project Charters — provides agreed upon project terms
• One Mail Stop Number — will assist in organizing submittals
• Tracking System = to track project status
• Consistent Reviews — to provide consistent reviews among departments
• Minutes/Decision Log — to document actions and decisions made
Paul Engstrom expressed his commitment on improving project delivery working
with local agencies and Caltrans Headquarters. The TAC also discussed the need
;to streamline federal processes, however, it was agreed that the, subcommittee
focus on improvements that Caltrans and the local agencies can make regarding
project delivery. Caltrans Headquarters is currently reviewing federal process
issues.
Attachment: Draft Project Charter
PROJECT CHARTER
NEW INTERCHANGE CONNECTION MCNAUGHTON PARKWAY INTERCHANGE BETWEEN DILLON
ROAD & CACTUS CITY
RIV-01'0-PM 62.3 to 62.9
CALTRANS EA 0845210
PANED PHASE
PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF COACHELLA
Date Prepared: July 6, 2006
Date Revised:
Pre ared and Submitted By:
w T Project Manager
CHARTER PURPOSE
The purpose of the Project Charter is to establish an agreement between project team
,(including all individuals responsible for the project delivery), Caltrans, and the Project
Sponsor (City of Coachella). This specifically relates to project schedule and conflict
resolution. The Project Charter will provide critical guidance to the Project Team
through the preparation of the Environmental Documents (PA&ED) and Plans,
;Specifications and Estimates (PS&E).
PROJECT LOCATION
See attached location map
'PROJECT BACKGROUND
Over the last ten years, significant planning and engineering studies have been
conducted on specific land use and circulation planning for the northeastern portion of
the City of Coachella. These studies have included preparation of a Specific Plan and
EIR, a Transportation Concept Report, inclusion of the proposed I-10/McNaughton
Interchangeinthe 1994 Regional Mobility Element and City of Coachella General Plan
Circulation Element in 1997.
In 1989, a Specific Plan and EIR was prepared for a 1,944 acre site located within the
northeastern boundaries of the City of Coachella, hereinafter referred to as the
'McNaughton Specific Plan. Principal access to this area was provided by A venue-50
A venue 52 and a new freeway interchange with 1-10.
In 1992, Caltrans District 11 prepared a Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for I-10.
.The proposed new interchange, which is the subject of this report, was identified by the
District as the Proposed McNaughton Parkway Interchange. The McNaughton
Development is included in this list of major developments that Caltrans considered in
preparing the TCR
1
I
On June 2, 1994, the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG) adopted the 1994 Regional Mobility Element (RME). The RME is
an update of the Regional Transportation Plan required by federal and state law, which
responds to the Clean Air Acts. In addition to outlining the region' s20 year strategy for
meeting mobility goals, the RME also serves as the $71 billion master funding list for all
transportation improvements. The I-10/McNaughton Interchange is included in the list
of RME Projects.
In 1996,.the City of Coachella updated the Circulation Element of the City's General
Plan.. The Coachella General Plan Transportation Model was developed as part of the
Coachella General Plan Update. It was based on the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) regional transportation model (CVATS). It includes the proposed
I-10/McNaughton Parkway Interchange as a key element of the City's Circulation Plan.
PURPOSE & NEED
Currently, the City of Coachella arterial street system has one point of connection to I
10, which is at Dillon Road. The proposed easterly extension of Avenue 50 and
connection to I-10 at the Mc Naughton interchange is needed to provide the City with a
second point of access to 1-10 in the eastern and northern portions of the City.
The purpose of the proposed I-10/McNaughton Interchange isto provide access to 1-10
in the eastern and northern portions of the City of Coachella which include the Mc,.
Naughton Specific Plan Area. Without the proposed 1-10/McNaughton Parkway
Interchange, this traffic would be distributed to the City's local street system including
State Route 86S and would negatively impact the City's existing and planned circulation
system including SR-86S. Also, without the proposed new interchange, 8.0 km .
segment of 1-10 through the City of Coachella would provide only one point of access to
the entire City at Dillon Road_
DELIVERY SUCCESS CRITERIA
The criteria for project success'are the development and approval of a PR and approval
of NEPA / CEQA environment documents. PR will be prepared with a quantitative
analysis of all viable alternatives and will choose the preferred alternative for this
project. PR will effectively address the forecast traffic demands of the year 2030 (20
year beyond the completion of the construction) and provide a lever of service "E for all
traffic operations within the project area.
The PS&E"documents will provide information needed to provide a solid basis for
constructionand all related tasks, including a reasonable engineers estimate and
minimization of change orders generated due to inadequate or incorrect plans or
specifications. The PS&E package will result in a "biddable and buildable" set of plans
and specifications.
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project involves the construction of a new interchange McNaughton Parkway on
Interstate 10 between the existing Dillon Road Interchange (PM R58.9) and the I-
10/Cactus City Safety Roadside Rest Areas (PM R72.0) in Riverside County. The
proposed interchange is identified in the Route Concept Report. Several interchange
options were analyzed and ultimately, the Alternative 3 is considered as best choice.
Alt 3 is a partial cloverleaf interchange.
CONSTRAINTS, RISKS and ASSUMPTIONS
1. It is recognized by all Team members that conditions can change that will affect the
original schedule. Team members will work together to minimize the impacts of such
changes.
2. All comments will be addressed during the review, comment, and resolution process.
3. Documented decisions will hold as final unless conditions have changed. Decisions
shall be documented, and if changed assumptions, issues and conditions leading to the
change(s), they will also be documented.
4. It is assumed that the Resource Agencies will review the project documents in the time
allowed.
, 5. The Team will agree to the early identification of the project alternatives to be studied.
There will be a consensus formed on the number of alternatives to be studied. The
addition of project alternatives will likely cause schedule and cost impacts, and such
additions should be carefully considered before proceeding.
6. The PR will use traffic projections for the year 2030.
;7.
The recommended alternative will be reevaluated to ensure compatibility with the
following:
a. Year 2030 traffic projections.
b. Updates to the City of Coachella General Plan.
c. Proposed improvements to 1-10.
d. Changes in land uses within the Interchange area.
8. The PR will be developed in U.S. Customary English units.
9. For environmental approvals, Caltrans and FHWA will be the Lead Agencies for CEQA
and NEPA, respectively.
10. Risk management plans shall be updated and modified at each new phase of work, and
shall be the responsible of the Project Team to accomplish this task.
3
I
PHASE DELIVERABLES (see attached for the most recent detailed schedule)
Baseline Schedule at the adoption of the Project Charter)
PAJED
PS&E
RW Cert.
RTL
Start Const.
End Const
4/2/07.
8/6/07
10/8/07
12/3/07
4/8/08
12/8/08
1. Modified Access Report
2. Finalized Meeting Minutes
3. Traffic Study Report
4. Cooperative Agreement
5. Fact Sheet
6. RAN Data Sheets.
• Anticipated Area In Right Of Way
• Assessor Parcel Numbers
• Project Plans
7. Geometric Approval Document (GAD) — Refer to the District's GAD Guide
8. Storm Water Data Report
9. Environmental Document
• Draft Initial Study and associated items
• Natural Environmental Study (NES) Biology)
• 106 Study (Cultural)
• Air Quality Analysis
• Noise Study -
• Initial Study Assessment (ISA)
• Final IS and associated items
• TrafficAnalysis
• Visual Impact Analysis
• 4F
10. PS&E Package
DELIVERABLE MANAGEMENT
Management of the phase deliverables will be conducted by the Project Team through
4
I
monthly or regular progress and coordination meetings, as well as through constant .
monitoring of the project schedule, which identifies key deliverable milestones.
• Meeting Minutes are the basis of documentation for all decisions.
• The City shall follow the Departments' procedures and policies.
• The City or its designee must follow Appendix K-Preparation Guidelines for the
Project Report (PR) from the Project Development Procedure Manual (PDPM) for
the preparation of the PR document. 1n addition, the City shallcoordinate with
Design for .all submittals needed for the approval of the PR including Geometric
Approval Drawings (GADs) and New/Modified Connection Report.
• Quality control is the responsibility of the Project Sponsor, while quality, assurance is
the responsibility of Caltrans (refer to the District's QC/QA Guidelines).
• Packages submitted to Caltrans by the City or its designee must be reviewed and
concurred with by the City.
• The City will submit complete packages on or before the appointment dates as
indicated in the Project Schedule.
• The City will submit completed packages to the following address:
State of California Department of Transportation
Oversight Project Coordinator
464 W. Fourth Street, MS 1230
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
• When submittals are not received on or before the appointment date, Caltrans will
send a letter to the consultant with a copy to the Project Sponsor indicating that the
planned submittal is overdue in accordance with the project schedule.
• Caltrans Design or its designee will screen check the packages submitted by. the
City or its designee for adequacy and completeness and respond within 3-4 working
days.
• If submitted material is deemed incomplete, Caltrans will send a letter to the
consultant with a copy to the City indicating that the documents are not adequate
and ready for review.
When a package is submitted and is deemed ready for formal review, Caltrans will
provide comments on the package within 6-7 weeks.
• Standard review periods are listed herein, but are subject to change.
• Resource Agencies will have adequate review time, as follows:
5
" F H W A w i l l h a v e a d e q u a t e r e v i e w t i m e , a s f o l l o w s :
T h e C i t y s h a l l p r o v i d e r e s p o n s e s t o a l l c o m m e n t s w i t h t h e r e - s u b m i t t a l o f p l a n s a n d
r e l a t e d : d o c u m e n t s : I t s h o u l d w o r k w i t h T e a m m e m b e r s t o r e s o l v e a l l c o m m e n t s a n d
p r o j e c t i s s u e s i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r .
I f s o m e p r o j e c t e l e m e n t o r p r o c e s s i s m i s s e d o r d o n e i n e r r o r , t h e P r o j e c t T e a m w i l l
a s s e m b l e a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e . t o e n s u r e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i s t a k e n , a m e n d t h e
s c h e d u l e i f n e c e s s a r y , a n d d o c u m e n t t h e p r o c e s s .
" T h e P r o j e c t w i l l h a v e a s c h e d u l e t h a t i s j o i n t l y a p p r o v e d , u p o n t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f a
s c h e d u l i n g m e e t i n g t o b e h e l d b e t w e e n t h e C a l t r a n s P M , F u n c t i o n a l U n i t s , P r o j e c t
S p o n s o r ' s C o n s u l t a n t a n d t h e P r o j e c t S p o n s o r .
" A n y s c h e d u l e c h a n g e s / d e l a y s i n m a j o r m i l e s t o n e s m u s t b e b r o u g h t t o T e a m a n d
n e e d s t o b e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e n e x t T e a m m e e t i n g a n d d o c u m e n t e d i n t h e M e e t i n g
M i n u t e s .
" C h a n g e s t o t h e D e l i v e r y S c h e d u l e : m a y b e w a r r a n t e d w h e n t h e a c t u a l d e l i v e r y o f
M a j o r D e l i v e r a b l e s ( o n t h e c r i t i c a l p a t h ) c a n n o t b e d e l i v e r e d w i t h i n 3 0 d a y s o f t h e
m o s t r e c e n t l y a d o p t e d s c h e d u l e ( s e e a t t a c h e d d e t a i l e d s c h e d u l e ) .
" T h e P r o j e c t T e a m s h a l l a m e n d t h e s c h e d u l e a s n e e d e d . E a c h t i m e t h e s c h e d u l e i s
a m e n d e d , t h e T e a m s h a l l f u l l y d o c u m e n t t h e r e a s o n ( s ) w h y t h e a m e n d m e n t w a s
u n d e r t a k e n a n d n e c e s s a r y . T h e s c h e d u l e a m e n d m e n t p r o c e s s s h a l l b e
a c c o m p l i s h e d a t T e a m m e e t i n g s ( i n p e r s o n , o r e l e c t r o n i c a l l y ) b y a c o n s e n s u s o f t h e
T e a m m e m b e r s a v a i l a b l e a t t h e m e e t i n g . A n y T e a m m e m b e r n o t p r e s e n t , t h e y ( o r
t h e r e l e v a n t F u n c t i o n a l u n i t , i f t h e r e s p e c t i v e T e a m m e m b e r i s n o t a v a i l a b l e ) w i l l b e
i m m e d i a t e l y a d v i s e d o f s u c h s c h e d u l e c h a n g e s b y t h e S p o n s o r ' s P r o j e c t M a n a g e r
a n d g i v e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o v o i c e o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e c h a n g e . T h e P r o j e c t S p o n s o r
w i l l h a v e 5 a d d i t i o n a l b u s i n e s s d a y s t o a d d r e s s s u c h o b j e c t i o n s a n d - a d j u s t t h e
s c h e d u l e i n o r d e r t o g a i n c o n s e n s u s b y a l l p a r t i e s . T h e f i n a l v e r s i o n w i l l b e e m a i l e d
t o a l l p a r t i e s .
" T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a d d i t i o n a l o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o d i f i e d a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l l i k e l y c a u s e
a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o d e l i v e r t h e p r o j e c t , a n d t h u s , : r e s u l t i n a s c h e d u l e a m e n d m e n t .
P R O J E C T S U C C E S S R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y
" A l l T e a m m e m b e r s s h a l l a g r e e u p o n a n d u s e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f
p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t a n d t a s k m a n a g e m e n t , i n o r d e r t o d e l i v e r y t h e p r o j e c t o n - t i m e ,
o n - b u d g e t , a n d i n a q u a l i t y f o r m .
" E a c h T e a m m e m b e r h a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p r o d u c t s a n d p r o c e s s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
6
I
the project delivery plan. Task managers are responsible for the delivery of their
outputs in a timely, thorough, and quality manner.
• If inputs are delayed, the. Task Manager for that element (receiving the inputs) shall
talk to the supplier of the inputs and take active steps to get that information in a
timely manner. If the inputs are not forthcoming; the Task Manager will inform the
Project Manager and undertake a course of action to correct the situation. This may
cause a schedule amendment, and appropriate documentation.
ISSUERESOLUTION
It is the intent of the Department and the City to resolve issues at the lowest level
possible. However, certain issues may need to be elevated when consensus cannot be
obtained.
• First level of review and resolution: Many of the issues that arise during the
development of a project can be resolved by the Project Team, especially those
that do not impact the scope, cost or schedule of the project. The Team will
review the project issue, the options for resolution, the pros and cons to each
option, and any advocate's reasons in support of specific option. Provided the!
resolution does not change the scope; cost and schedule of the Project, the
Team should determine the outcome. If the Team either does not have sufficient
authority to resolve the issue or is unable to agree, then the team will elevate the
issue after a maximum of three (3) working days following the meeting that
identified and attempted to attain resolution.
• Second level of review and resolution: The second level involves the Deputy
District Director's for the District's Capital Program and the City Engineer. They
will review the document presenting the issue, the options for resolution, the pros
and cons to each option, and any advocate's reasons in support of specific
options. Provided the resolution falls within the available contingency, which they
oversee, then they should determine the outcome. If they either do not have
sufficient authority to resolve the issue or are unable to agree, then they will
elevate the issue to the third level of review after a maximum of two meetings (an
initial meeting to hear the issue, and, if necessary, a second meeting to hear any
additional information requested during the first meeting).
Third level review and resolution: The third level of review involves the District 8
Director and the City Manager. They will review the document presenting the
issue, the options for resolution, the pros and cons to each option, and the
advocate's reasons in support of specific options. Provided the resolution falls
within the authority granted to them, then they should determine the outcome. If,
for some reason, the issue cannot be fully resolved without approval from the
City Council and/or the CTC, then they will direct the preparation of agenda items
for any required action needed to ratify their agreed upon solution.
• The Department expressly reserves the right to exercise its authority to direct the
7
implementation of the appropriate responses to issues affecting the project, in
the event that the Department believes that the implementation of a project
proposal may adversely affect:
• The safety of the traveling public or Department employees;
• Future Department liability in respect to the operation and maintenance of the
completed project facility;
• Future operations and maintenance costs of the constructed Project facilities;
and
• Future statutory obligations of the Department that may arise during the
development of the. Project and pertain to either the new or existing; facility but
are not yet identifiable at this time.
• In the rare instance that the Department exercises this authority, it will do so by
advising the District 8 Director and the City Mayor, 15 days prior to issuing a
determination and by issuing the determination in a letter signed by the
Department Director.
KEY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS
• Caltrans District 8 Project Manager:
• Caltrans Planning:
• Caltrans Design Oversight:
• Consulting Project Manager:
• Consulting Project Engineer:
APPROVALS
John Pagano, PE'
Savat Khamphou, PE
City of Coachella (Sponsor) Date
Paul Engstrom
Deputy District Director
Program/Project Management
Caltrans District 8
8
Date
Patty Romo
Deputy District Director
Design
Ca!trans District 8
`Ernest A. Figueroa
!Deputy District Director
Environmental
Caltrans District 8
t`;',
Date
Date
9
LOCATION MAP
15
Camp
Nearside
15
91
L--\
ORANGE
COUNTY
74
t0
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
�J
Beaumont
Banning
Temecula
79
74
RNERSIDE Spd�ngs
COUNTY
111
111
Palm
Desert
74
Project
Location
Coachella
AGENDA ITEM 8
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 8.
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
PM 2.5 Update and Conformity Form Feedback
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive and file an update on the developing conformity
review process for the new PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis requirement
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The process to review and determine if a project in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is
or is not a project of air quality concern (POAQC) and requires a PM 2.5 Hot Spot.
Analysis continues into its third month of refinement. FHWA and EPA have established
the SCAG Transportation Conformity Work Group (TCWG) as the vehicle to conduct
interagency consultation to initially review and determine if a project is not a POAQC
and not subject to the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis requirement. Requesting a PM
conformity review determination requires the project sponsor to complete the PM.
Conformity Hot Spot Analysis - Project Summary for Interagency Consultation form and
submit it to SCAG for inclusion in the next appropriate TCWG agenda.
Project conformity reviews have now occurred at the SCAG TCWG over the last two
months. FHWA and EPA have provided some feedback to help improve the process as
the project sponsor completes the form for the SCAG TCWG. Key areas on the form
identified include the following:
1. Project Description section: This section must include the RTIP ID number and a
sufficient description of what the project will accomplish. The description should
go beyond the RTIP description as needed to ensure the major scope elements are
clearly identified.
2. The Build and No Build LOS, AADT, % trucks, truck AADT of proposed facility
(opening year) and (RTP horizon year or design year) section MUST include'
specific truck volume numbers. Do not just include truck volume percentage
changes.
3. Use the "Describe potential traffic redistribution effects of congestion relief"
section to provide the methodology behind the truck volume changes and how'
you determined that the project is not a POAQC. This could be in the form of the
surrounding land use development for IC improvement type projects, citing the
project constraints for gap closure type projects, etc.
4. Use the "Comments/Explanation/Details" section to explain supporting .,
documentation from the Project Report that may have been provided. Cite any
potential funding obligation issues, or key next federal approval actions to help
prioritize the review of the project.
5. Include (generally as a pdf file) any necessary support documentation that backs';
up the methodology and conclusions you have stated. Include a project location.
map or exhibit to help explain the location and nature. of the project so that the
reviewing agencies clearly understand where the project is located and what it
will accomplish.
Some confusion still exists over what projects are subject to the PM.2.5 analysis
requirement. To help reduce some of the questions still circulating, a notes table, is
provided as an attachment.
Attachments:
1. PM" 2.5 Analysis Requirement - Summary Overview Notes
2. PM _Conformity Hot Spot Analysis - Project Summary for Interagency Consultation
form
Topic
What air basin is subject to
the PM 2.5 analysis
requirement
What projects are subject to
complete a PM 2.5
analysis?
What projects may not be a
project of air quality concern
and not subject to the PM
2.5 requirement?
If the project sponsor/lead
agency believes the project
is not a POAQC, and a
federal approval action is
pending (e.g. env doc sign -
off, fund obligation, PS&E
sign off, etc) what should
the sponsor do?
When should the project
sponsor complete and
submit the Interagency
Consultation form to
Caltrans or RCTC?
PM 2.5 Analysis Requirement
Summary Discussion Overview Notes
General Rule
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
• All non exempt projects in the SCAB
region
• Any non exempt project that has a
RTIP conformity code of Non
Federal/Non Regionally Significant"
• Signal installation projects which are
not signal synchronization projects
• Some channelization improvement
projects whether or not NEPA is
required and the project may not be
modeled in the RTP or RTIP.
• Projects listed in 40 CFR 93.126,
Table 2
• Signal synchronization projects as
discussed in 40 CFR 93. 127
• Projects outside of the SCAB region
• Projects declared not to be a
POAQC by FHWA and EPA
Complete the PM Conformity Hot Spot
Analysis — Project Summary for
Interagency Consultation form and
submit it to:
• Caltrans District 8 (Paul Fagan in
Program Management) for projects
on the State Highways System
• RCTC (Ken Lobeck or Shirley
Medina) for Local Highways and
Transit System projects
Within in sufficient time prior (a couple
of months ahead of) to the next
required federal approval (e.g. env
doc sign -off
Notes or Exception
Currently the PM 2.5 requirement
is not applicable to the Salton
Sea Air Basin (SSAB).
Projects that may not have to
complete the PM 2.5 requirement
may include non exempt projects
that are:
• 100% locally funded and
• NO NEPA — only CEQA is
required, and
• NO federal approvals of any
kind exist for the project
• Some channelizationprojects
as discussed in 40 CFR 93.127
could be exempt from the PM
2.5 requirement if they are
determined not to be a project
of air quality concern (POAQC)
Some transit projects which may-
or may not be exempt from RTP
or RTIP modeling (e.g. a transit
center, new parking structure,
Metrolink line extension, BRT
project, etc.). Federal approvals
are assumed will exist for these
types of projects
Caltrans and RCTC provide a
conduit to assist the project
sponsor complete the PM
Conformity Hot Spot Analysis —
Project Summary for Interagency
Consultation form before sending
it on to SCAG for review by
FHWA and EPA
The completed.from and
applicable supporting
documentation needs to be
submitted at least two weeks
prior to the SCAG TCWG to
enable FHWA, EPA and Caltrans
HQ time to review the project
Once the form is submitted
what happens next?
Caltrans and RCTC will send the form
to the SCAG Transportation
Conformity Workgroup (TCWG).
SCAG staff will review the form and
send it on to FHWA, EPA and
Caltrans HQ. The item will be added
to the TCWG agenda.
The form functions to enable a
review to occur to determine that
the project is or is not aproject of
air quality concern (POAQC) and
if the project must complete a PM
2.5 Hot Spot Analysis
What happens at the SCAG
TCWG?
The project sponsor is responsible for
ensuring a knowledgeable person is
present at the TCWG to answer
questions or provide further details
about the project or data stated on the
form. FHWA, EPA, AQMD, and others
as needed will discuss the form and
make a determination if the PM 2.5
analysis still applies to the project.
The adequacy of PM 2.5
project documentation is the
responsibility; of the project
sponsor. The project sponsor
needs to be present at the
TCWG to defend their reasons
'that the project is not a POAQC`
This is not the responsibility of
SCAG, ROTC, or Caltrans. The
representative must be able to
back-up and explain any findings
and methodology stated on the
form. The key review area is the
generation of additional diesel
truck traffic from the: project.
What happens if PM 2.5
analysis is not compiefed
and the project sponsor
makes no request
interagency consultation b
9 y y
not completing and
submitting the form?
If the PM 2.5 analysis applies to the
project and is not completed, sign -off
of the next federal action will not
occur. This could mean that the
environmental document is not
signed -off, sign -off of final design
does not occur, fund obligation does
not occur, etc.
Future FNM-76 obligation actions
will include a PM 2.5 check as
part of the obligation approval.
SCAG anticipates many
completed PM 2.5
Interagency Consultation
forms will be submitted.
What will be the priority in
reviewing them?
The project sponsor should state on
the form if an urgency issue exists for
a conformity review at the TCWG (e.g.
pending env doc sign -off, lapsing. ;
funds if not obligated, etc.)_
Where can l find further
guidance concerning the
PM 2.5 analysis
requirement?
PM 2.5 guidance can be found at the
FHWA website at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/-
conformity/con_pothtm
Additional guidance can be Pound
at FHWA's website using the
Search function based on "Title
40 CFR 93.123"
Project Sponsor and PM 2.5 Conformity Review Steps:
1. Determine if PM 2.5 analysis requirement applies to the projector not. If you believe that the
project is not a POAQC and the PM 2.5 requirement should not apply, request a conformity
review determination by completing the PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis - Project Summary for
Interagency Consultation form and submitting it to Caltrans District 8 Project Management (for
State Highway System projects) orRCTC (for the Local Highways System or transit projects).
2. Ensure a qualified person attends the SCAG TCWG to discuss the project with FHWA and EPA.
Note: The project sponsor is responsible for ensuring a qualified person is physically present at
the TCWG to answer questions about the project
Caltrans submission contact for
State Highways System projects:
Dr. Paul Fagan
Division of Program/Project Management
Caltrans, District 8
464 West Fourth St, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
T: (909) 383-5902
F: (909) 383-6938
Email: paul_fagan@dot.ca.gov
RCTC submission contact
for Local Highways/Transit System projects:
Ken Lobeck
Staff Analyst
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502
T:. (951) 787-7141
F: (951) 787-7920
Email: klobeck@rctc.org
PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis
Project Summary Form for Interagency Consultation
The 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 Confomt!ity 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 Concem" (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
I 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:
1) Fill out form in its entirety. Enter information in gray input fields.
2) Be sure to include RTIP ID#. See http://scag.ca.gov/rtip/ if necessary.
3) Submit completed form to your local Transportation Commission who will submit it
to the MPO. Caltrans projects can be submitted by Caltrans District representative.
The 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.
i
July 30, 2006
REFERENCE
Criteria for Projects of Air Quality Concern (40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)) - PM,o and PM2.5 Hot
Spots
(i) New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant
increase in diesel vehicles;
(ii) 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;
(iii) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points than have a significant number of diesel
vehicles congregating at a single location;
(iv) Expandedbus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the
number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and
(v) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in
the PM10 or PM2.5 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan
submission, as appropriate; as sites of violation or possible violation.
Links to more information:
http://www.fhwa.dot.qov/environment/conform.htm
http://www.epa.qov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm
TABLE 1
Type of Project
• New state highway
• Change to existing state highway
• New regionally significant street
• Change to existing regionally significant street
• New interchange
• Reconfigure existing interchange
• Intersection channelization
• Intersection signalization
• 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
ii
July 30, 2006
PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis —Project Summary for Interagency Consultation
RTIP ID# (required)
Project Description (clearly describe project)
i
Type of Project (use Table 1 on instruction sheet)
County
Narrative. Location/Route & Postmiles
Caltrans Projects — EA#
Lead Agency:
Contact Person
Phone#
Fax#
Email
Hot Spot Pollutant of Concern (check one or both) PM2.5 PM10
Federal Action for which Project -Level PM Conformity is Needed (check appropriate box)
Categorical
Exclusion
(NEPA)
EA or Draft
EIS
FONSI or
Final EIS
PS&E or
Construction
Other .
Scheduled Date of Federal Action:
Current Programming
Dates as appropriate
PE/Environmental
ENG ROW
CON
l
L.
)
End
Project Purpose and Need (Summary): (attach additional sheets as necessary)
i
1
Version 3.0
July 3;2006
PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis — Project Summary for Interagency Consultation
Surrounding Land Use/Traffic Generators (especially effect on diesel traffic)
Opening Year: Build and No Build LOS, AADT, % and # trucks, truck AADT of proposed facility
RTP Horizon Year / Design Year: Build and No Build LOS, AADT, % and # trucks, truck AADT of proposed facility
Opening Year: If facility is an interchange(s) or intersecton(s), Build and No Build cross -street AADT, % and # tnicks,.
truck AADT
RTP Horizon Year / Design Year: If facility is an interchange (s) or intersection(s), Build and No Build cross -street
AADT, % and # trucks; truck AADT
Describe potential traffic redistribution effects of congestion relief (impact on other facilities)
Comments/Explanation/Details (attach additional sheets as necessary)
Version 3.0
July 3, 2006
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION .
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update and Next Steps
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive and file an update on the developing 2007 RTP.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As of July, RCTC has received most of updates for the reformatted RTP Plan project list
for inclusion in the 2007 RTP. A final review of the projects is occurring to look for
possible duplications between the 2006 RTIP and the 2007 RTP. Upon completion of
this review, the arterial projects will be sent on to SCAG for their review. The Mainline
section will be sent on to SCAG as a separate submission. The ACE grade separation list
also will be sent on to SCAG separately.
Upon receipt of the project lists, SCAG will review the lists and complete any final
reformatting actions. Additional questions may emerge during SCAG's review. The final
review and clarification will probably occur through the remainder of summer. SCAG
will continue with the development of 2007 RTP with a target approval date of
December 2007.
However, as of July 2007, the existing 2004 RTP will expire. SCAG intends to utilize
thle "grace year" in SAFETEA LU to enable the SCAG region to avoid a conformity lapse.
While the SAFETEA LU grace year prevents a conformity lapse, it will result in a RTIP
praogramming lock -down similar to the one experienced from September 2003 to October
2004. The programming lock -down will occur because there will no longer be
consistency between the RTIP and the RTP. When the programming lock -down occurs,
no formal amendments can occur to the RTIP. Only administrative amendments can
occur. New exempt projects or the exempt phase of a non exempt project (e.g. PA&ED
phase for an IC project) can't be added to the RTIP as this requires a formal amendment
to the RTIP.
On the positive side, SCAG is completing a RTP gap -analysis review that FHWA may be
able to accept which will prevent the programming lock -down. The gap -analysis may
require development of an interim RTIP. As the gap analysis progresses, further details
will be provided to the TAC.
AGENDA ITEM 11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
;FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
!THROUGH:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
'SUBJECT:
2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Update
and Notification of Amendment 01 Development
i
I STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
'This item is for the TAC to receive an update on the draft 2006 RTIP and to notify .
the TAC of Amendment 01 initiation.
'BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As of July 2006, SCAG has now completed modeling the 2006 RTIP and the
financial plan. The 2006 RTIP appears to be a conforming and financially
'constrained document. The mandatory public review process is now occurring for
rthe RTIP. The public review process is anticipated to be completed by early August
with adoption by the SCAG Regional Council occurring shortly thereafter. Once
adopted, SCAG can send on the 2006 RTIP on to Caltrans HQ and federal agencies
for review and approval. Currently, the 2006 RTIP is on schedule for an anticipated
'approval on or about October 4, 2006. The 2006 RTIP is now posted on the SCAG
website at http://www.scag.ca.gov/ under the "What's New" column at the 2006
;RTIP link. Projects are listed in the Volume 3 section.
The early October approval is predicated upon a review that does not produced
significant conditional findings. If significant issues emerge during the review,
initiation of Amendment 01 may be delayed until all RTIP issues are resolved. Since
the first Amendment to the 2006 RTIP will be a very large amendment which will
include the new federally funded FY 07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) projects
and other needed clean-up actions to existing programmed highway improvement
projects, the CTCs and SCAG are initiating development of Amendment 01 now to
help provide more time review projects.
Amendment 01 (very soft) timeline:
July 17, 2006: Amendment 01 notification and initiation
August 1, 2006: Send out TIP sheets for review and mark-up
September 14, 2006:Marked-up TIP sheets due back to RCTC
Mid October, 2006: RCTC submits Formal and Administrative Amendment 01 to
SCAG
Mid December 2006: SCAG submits Amendment 01 to Caltrans HQ
AGENDA ITEM 12
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
July 17, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
July 2006 Project Milestone Reports Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive an update on July 2006 Project Milestone Reports
that will be in progress.
i
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Updates to project milestone reports will be occurring in mid July. An update on the
schedule will be provided to the TAC. The updated reports will be used to develop the
fall 2006 Obligation plan and obligation projections through 2007. Milestone reports that
will need updating will include all unobligated CMAQ, DEMOT21, SAFETEA HPP
earmarks, annual appropriations (non transit) earmarks, RSTP, and TE funded projects
RGTC is responsible for monitoring. The Excel format project milestone report has been
slightly reformatted again, but will not require any new significant information from the
project sponsor.
-· INITIAL CITY TAC MEMBER BANNING 99 E. Ramsey St., DUANE BURK Banning 92220-0998 Director of Public Works , ~ ,.EIEAUMONT ·~ 550 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 .¥ 464 W. 4th St., 6th Fl., San Bernardino 92401-1400 SEAN YEUNG CANYON LAKE 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 t515 West Sixth Street, Coachella 92236 BILL GALLEGOS I-.C.ORONA AMADQATIAN 400 South Vicentia Ave. Public Works Director Corona 92882 Public Works Department DESERT HOT SPRINGS -65-950 DAN PATNEAUDE Pierson Blvd., Desert Assistant City Engineer Hot Springs 92240 Engineering Department TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2006 TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL 951-922-3130 951-922-3141 dburk@ci.banning.ca.us 951-769-8520 951-769-8526 ulcjohn1@aol.com 760-922-6611 x227 760-922-0278 jwrjr@gte.net 760-346-1127 760-340-5949 awaggle@cvag.org 909-795-9801 909-795-4399 909-383-4030 909-383-4129 sean_yeung@dot.ca.gov 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net 760-770-0360 760-202-1460 bbayne@cathedralcity.gov 760-398-57 44 760-398-1630 bgallegos@coachella.org 951-736-2236 951-736-2496 amadq@ci.corona.ca.us 760-329-6411 X243 760-288-0651 dpatneaude@ci.desert-hot-springs.ca.us • ALTERNATE AL TERNA TE E-MAIL 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 Eric Skaugset, Assistant Engineer eskaugset@sanjacintoca.us Leslie Grosjean lgrosjean@cathedralcity.gov Tony Lucero Senior Civil Engineer Department of Public Works tlucero@coachella.org < ~ahim ,) ) Assistant Pu~ Dirnn•nr ned.ibrahim@ci.corona.ca.us Ryan Duarte Associate Engineer 7117/2006
" " C I T Y T A C M E M B E R H E M E T ~ 5 1 0 E . F l o r i d a A v e n u e H e m e t 9 2 5 4 3 M I K E G O W I N D I A N W E L L S ; , - S 4 4 - 9 5 0 E l d o r a d o D r . , T I M W A S S I L I n d i a n W e l l s P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r 9 2 2 1 0 - 7 4 9 7 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t I N D I O t ( J ( 1 0 0 C i v i c C e n t e r M a l l , I n d i o 9 2 2 0 2 A M I R M O D A R R E S S I L A Q U I N T A ~ P . O . B o x 1 5 0 4 , 7 8 - 4 9 5 C a l l e T a m p i c o , T I M O T H Y J O N A S S O N L a Q u i n t a 9 2 2 5 3 P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r ( a i / L A K E E L S I N O R E K E N S E U M A L O 1 3 0 S o u t h M a i n S t . , C i t y E n g i n e e r L a k e E l s i n o r e 9 2 5 3 0 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t M O R E N O V A L L E Y t : V Y P . 0 . B o x 8 8 0 0 5 , M o r e n o V a l l e y C H R I S V O G T ' 9 2 5 5 2 - 0 8 0 5 P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r ~ M U R R I E T A 2 6 4 4 2 B e c k m a n C o u r t , J I M K I N L E Y M u r r i e t a 9 2 5 6 2 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s / C i t y E n g i n e e r N O R C O 2 8 7 0 C l a r k A v e . . P . O . B o x 4 2 8 , B I L L T H O M P S O N N o r c o 9 2 8 6 0 - 0 4 2 8 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s P A L M D E S E R T ~ 7 3 - 5 1 0 F r e d W a r i n g D r . , P a l m D e s e r t 9 2 2 6 0 - M A R K G R E E N W O O D 2 5 7 8 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c w o r k s Y / ) l J P A L M S P R I N G S 3 2 0 0 T a h q u i t z C a n y o n D A V E B A R A K I A N W a y , D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s / P a l m S p r i n g s 9 2 2 6 2 C i t y E n g i n e e r P V V T A 1 2 5 W e s t M u r p h y S t . , L E S N E L S O N B l y t h e 9 2 2 2 5 C i t y M a n a g e r T E C H N I C A L A D . R Y C O M M I T T E E J U L Y 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 T E L E P H O N E F A X E - M A I L 9 5 1 - 7 6 5 - 3 7 1 2 9 5 1 - 7 6 5 - 2 4 9 3 m g o w @ c i t y o f h e m e t . o r g 7 6 0 - 7 7 6 - 0 2 3 7 7 6 0 - 3 4 6 - 0 4 0 7 t w a s s i l @ c i t y o f i n d i a n w e l l s . o r g 7 6 0 - 3 4 2 - 6 5 3 0 7 6 0 - 3 4 2 - 6 5 5 6 a m i r @ i n d i o . o r g 7 6 0 - 7 7 7 - 7 0 4 2 7 6 0 - 7 7 7 - 7 1 5 5 t j o n a s s o n @ l a - q u i n t a . o r g 9 5 1 - 6 7 4 - 3 1 2 4 x 2 4 4 9 5 1 - 6 7 4 - 2 3 9 2 k s e u m a l o @ l a k e - e l s i n o r e . o r g 9 5 1 - 4 1 3 - 3 1 0 5 9 5 1 - 4 1 3 - 3 1 7 0 c h r i s v @ m o v a l . o r g 9 5 1 - 4 6 1 - 6 0 7 7 9 5 1 - 6 9 8 - 4 5 0 9 j k i n l e y @ m u r r i e t a . o r g 9 5 1 - 2 7 0 - 5 6 0 7 9 5 1 - 2 7 0 - 5 6 2 2 b t h o m p s o n @ c i . n o r c o . c a . u s ( - / " " \ 7 6 0 - 7 7 6 - 6 4 5 0 7 6 0 - 3 4 1 - 7 0 9 8 m g r e e o w o o d @ c L p ~ m - - O e s e r t . c a . u s ~ 7 6 0 - 3 2 3 - 8 2 5 3 7 6 0 - 3 2 2 - 8 3 2 5 D a v e B @ c i . p a l m - s p r i n g s . c a . u s 7 6 0 - 9 2 2 - 6 1 6 1 7 6 0 - 9 2 2 - 4 9 3 8 l n e l s o n @ c i t y o f b l y t h e . c a . g o v " A L T E R N A T E A L T E R N A T E E - M A I L L i n d a N i x o n B o n d i e B a k e r A s s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r I I b b a k e r @ c i t y o f i n d i a n w e l l s . o r g J i m S m i t h j s m i t h @ i n d i o . o r g N i c k N i c k e r s o n n n i c k e r s o n @ n a i c o n s u l t i n g . c o m t - - ' " ' E d B a s u b a s S e n i o r C i v i l E n g i n e e r , e b a s u b a s @ l a k e - e l s i n o r e . o r g ~ C r a i g N e u s t a e d t e r c r a i g n @ m o v a l . o r g R u s s N a p i e r C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m M a n a g e r m a p i e r @ m u r r i e t a . o r g L o r i A s k e w A s s o c i a t e E n g i n e e r L a s k e w @ c i . n o r c o . c a . u s r , - - ~ ~ � 1 " ' _ _ . I ~ A L . A N A . . , . - o c . 1 n " S 1 - . . . . . L f l . 1 - t > w n . s e n J , P � - . . . . . . . . _ 1 1 1 h i l J o y ' - " . ~ s M a r c u s F u l l e r 7 1 1 7 / 2 0 0 6
" " " " " C I T Y T A C M E M B E R P E R R I S 1 0 1 N o r t h ' D ' S t . , A H M A D A N S A R I P e r r i s 9 2 5 7 0 P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r R T A 1 8 2 5 T h i r d S t . , M A R K S T A N L E Y R i v e r s i d e 9 2 5 1 7 - 1 9 6 8 D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g R A N C H O M I R A G E 6 9 - 8 2 5 H i g h w a y 1 1 1 , B R U C E H A R R Y R a n c h o M i r a g e 9 2 2 7 0 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s R I V E R S I D E T O M B O Y D 3 9 0 0 M a i n S t . , D e p u t y P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / R i v e r s i d e 9 2 5 2 2 C i t y E n g i n e e r ~ I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y G E O R G E J O H N S O N 1 / t / I D i r e c t o r o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t . , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d L a n d M a n a g e m e n t R i v e r s i d e 9 2 5 0 1 A g e n c y " ( I J U A N P E R E Z R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y D e p u t y D i r e c t o r o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n v 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t . , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d L a n d M a n a g e m e n t R i v e r s i d e 9 2 5 0 1 A g e n c y S A N J A C I N T O 2 0 1 E . M a i n S t . , H A B I B M O T L A G H S a n J a c i n t o 9 2 5 8 3 C o n t r a c t C i t y E n g i n e e r 8 L S U N L I N E 3 2 - 5 0 5 H a r r y O l i v e r T r a i l , T h o u s a n d P a l m s E U N I C E L O V I 9 2 2 7 6 D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g T E M E C U L A B I L L H U G H E S 4 3 2 0 0 B u s i n e s s P a r k D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s / C i t y E n g i n e e r D r . , T e m e c u l a 9 2 5 9 0 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t I W R C O G 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e 9 2 5 0 1 R U T H A N N E T A Y L O R - B E R G E R T E C H N I C A L A D . R Y C O M M I T T E E J U L Y 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 T E L E P H O N E F A X E - M A I L 9 5 1 - 9 4 3 - 6 1 0 0 x 2 3 7 9 5 1 - 9 4 3 - 8 5 9 1 a a n s a r i @ c i t y o f p e r r i s . o r g 9 5 1 - 5 6 5 - 5 1 3 0 9 5 1 - 5 6 5 - 5 1 3 1 m s t a n l e y @ r i v e r s i d e t r a n s i t . c o m 7 6 0 - 7 7 0 - 3 2 2 4 7 6 0 - 7 7 0 - 3 2 6 1 b r u c e h @ c i . r a n c h o - m i r a g e . c a . u s 9 5 1 - 8 2 6 - 5 5 7 5 9 5 1 - 8 2 6 - 5 5 4 2 T B o y d @ r i v e r s i d e c a . g o v 9 5 1 - 9 5 5 - 6 7 4 0 9 5 1 - 9 5 5 - 3 1 9 8 G J o h n s o n @ r c t l m a . o r g 9 5 1 - 9 5 5 - 6 7 4 0 9 5 1 - 9 5 5 - 3 1 9 8 j c p e r e z @ c o . r i v e r s i d e . c a . u s 9 5 1 - 9 4 3 - 6 5 0 4 9 5 1 - 9 4 3 - 8 4 1 6 t r i l a k e @ a d e l p h i a . n e t 7 6 0 - 3 4 3 - 3 4 5 6 X 1 1 9 7 6 0 - 3 4 3 - 3 8 4 5 e l o v i @ s u n l i n e . o r g 9 5 1 - 6 9 4 - 6 4 1 1 9 5 1 - 6 9 4 - 6 4 7 5 b i l l . h u g h e s @ c i t y o f t e m e c u l a . o r g 9 5 1 - 9 5 5 - 8 3 0 4 9 5 1 - 7 8 7 - 7 9 9 1 b e r g e r @ w r c o g . c o g . c a . u s " A L T E R N A T E A L T E R N A T E E - M A I L . H a b i b M o t l a g h C o n t r a c t C i t y E n g i n e e r t r i l a k e @ a d e l p h i a . n e t M i k e M c C o y m ~ r i ~ ~ t r a n ~ S e n i o r P l a n n e r P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t R a n d y V i e g a s P r o j e c t M a n a g e r r a n d y v @ c i . r a n c h o - m i r a g e . c a . u s S i o b h a n F o s t e r s f o s t e r @ r i v e r s i d e c a . g o v J u a n P e r e z D e p u t y D i r e c t o r o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n j c p e r e z @ c o . r i v e r s i d e . c a . u s G e o r g e J o h n s o n D i r e c t o r o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G J o h n s o n @ r c t l m a . o r g E r i c S k a u g s e t , A s s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r e s k a u g s e t @ s a n j a c i n t o c a . u s R o n P a r k s D e p u t y P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r - A h U P - > U > 1 b l . A . v ( \ C - C l \ ~ V \ s q o ( { - 3 < ? " 3 - ~ ' l O c t ' t o < = ! b ~ 3 - 1 1 2 q C \ l \ ' L - \ < l _ C . O \ b l A v ' Y ' \ Q d , , + . C A . . - ~ O v ' ~ A J l ~ ' > l Z - " b " f . c l J P . A . t i V C i t o s o . " ~ s e a , . , ( < 4 1 - � s ' f - i . o f t 1 . o 1 > , a . 1 w f . . P e . . " " ' s . . . . . , > ' - , t . o ~ . r . ~ " ' " " ' F r t J A L a . m o L ~ o l o . . M u n i o / A L � 1 1 4 / ? f S o o f c t . - ? F r e d A l . A m M E R e ( 4 . f t e o . ~ ( } ' f o ' I - 5 ' 1 5 - 3 7 6 0 - S ' ( e f h t # I R � J b 0 5 / ' 1 v ~ I C ~ ~ / < ~ ~ V Y c e 4 @ 1 G t < . ) p . . , � _ 1 [ . . . , C A . b " J . A C . : - P C ' D \ ? o q ~ ' ( - 7 ~ - 1 ' / B g - = s J L ' T v ' ; " } - \ . T f l " \ \ i ' \ r \ 1 o t " 3 ~ e . , . 1 \ ~ ~ A . _ , � _ _ _ ~ 4 ~ \ I R L : > K � 9 0 - C � i ~ . 9 ' { ~ r - y / V . , , : , 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 C , f t t r ! - J U , , , c . c : . v / , . , ' t . n - " " ' f - / A ' f > 7 b v y l ~ f ; l i t t J 5 ~ ~ c . r ; ; y ~ e . e . u ~ H 7 ~ ~ J 6 ; J n � . ~ f ? C / r c / ) o . _ ~ d k J Z . - U " c _ 7 1 1 7 / 2 0 0 6