Loading...
07 July 17, 2006 Technical advisory commitee77409 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 • FHWA will have adequate review time, as follows: The City shall provide responses to all comments with the re -submittal of plans and related: documents: It should work with Team members to resolve all comments and project issues in a timely manner. If some project element or process is missed or done in error, the Project Team will assemble as soon as possible. to ensure corrective action is taken, amend the schedule if necessary, and document the process. • The Project will have a schedule that is jointly approved, upon the completion of a scheduling meeting to be held between the Caltrans PM, Functional Units, Project Sponsor's Consultant and the Project Sponsor. • Any schedule changes / delays in major milestones must be brought to Team and needs to be discussed in the next Team meeting and documented in the Meeting Minutes. • Changes to the Delivery Schedule: may be warranted when the actual delivery of Major Deliverables (on the critical path) cannot be delivered within 30 days of the most recently adopted schedule (see attached detailed schedule). • The Project Team shall amend the schedule as needed. Each time the schedule is amended, the Team shall fullydocument the reason(s) why the amendment was undertaken and necessary. The schedule amendment process shall be accomplished at Team meetings (in person, or electronically) by a consensus of the Team members available at the meeting. Any Team member not present, they (or the relevant Functional unit, if the respective Team member is not available) will be immediately advised of such schedulechanges by the Sponsor's Project Manager and given business days to voice objections to the change. The Project Sponsor will have 5 additional business days to address such objections and -adjust the schedule in order to gain consensus by all parties. The final version will be emailed to all parties. • The development of additional or substantially modified alternatives will likely cause additional time to deliver the project, and thus,: result in a schedule amendment. PROJECT SUCCESS RESPONSIBILITY • All Team members shall agree upon and use generally accepted principles of project management and task management, in order to delivery the project on -time, on -budget, and in a quality form. • Each Team member has responsible for the products and process associated with 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 •• CITY TAC MEMBER HEMET ~ 510 E. Florida Avenue Hemet 92543 MIKE GOW INDIAN WELLS ;,-S 44-950 Eldorado Dr., TIM WASSIL Indian Wells Public Works Director/City Engineer 92210-7497 Public Works Department INDIO t(J( 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio 92202 AMIR MODARRESSI LA QUINTA ~ P.O.Box 1504, 78-495 Calle Tampico, TIMOTHY JONASSON La Quinta 92253 Public Works Director/City Engineer (ai/ LAKE ELSINORE KEN SEUMALO 130 South Main St., City Engineer Lake Elsinore 92530 Community Development Department MORENO VALLEY t:VY P.0.Box 88005, Moreno Valley CHRIS VOGT ' 92552-0805 Public Works Director/City Engineer ~ MURRIETA 26442 Beckman Court, JIM KINLEY Murrieta 92562 Director of Public Works/City Engineer NORCO 2870 Clark Ave .. P.O.Box 428, BILL THOMPSON Norco 92860-0428 Director of Public Works PALM DESERT ~ 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert 92260-MARK GREENWOOD 2578 Director of Public works Y/)lJ PALM SPRINGS 3200 Tahquitz Canyon DAVE BARAKIAN Way, Director of Public Works/ Palm Springs 92262 City Engineer PVVTA 125 West Murphy St., LES NELSON Blythe 92225 City Manager TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2006 TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL 951-765-3712 951-765-2493 mgow@cityofhemet.org 760-776-0237 760-346-0407 twassil@cityofindianwells.org 760-342-6530 760-342-6556 amir@indio.org 760-777-7042 760-777-7155 tjonasson@la-quinta.org 951-674-3124 x244 951-674-2392 kseumalo@lake-elsinore.org 951-413-3105 951-413-3170 chrisv@moval.org 951-461-6077 951-698-4509 jkinley@murrieta.org 951-270-5607 951-270-5622 bthompson@ci.norco.ca.us ( -/""\ 760-776-6450 760-341-7098 mgreeowood@cLp~m--Oesert.ca.us ~ 760-323-8253 760-322-8325 DaveB@ci.palm-springs.ca.us 760-922-6161 760-922-4938 lnelson@cityofblythe.ca.gov • ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL Linda Nixon Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II bbaker@cityofindianwells.org Jim Smith jsmith@indio.org Nick Nickerson nnickerson@naiconsulting.com t--'"' Ed Basubas Senior Civil Engineer , ebasubas@lake-elsinore.org ~ Craig Neustaedter craign@moval.org Russ Napier Capital Improvement Program Manager mapier@murrieta.org Lori Askew Associate Engineer Laskew@ci.norco.ca.us r,--~ ~£1"'__.I~ AL.AN A ..,.-oc.1n"S 1-.....L fl.1-t>wn.senJ,P · -........ _1 11 hil Joy '-". ~s Marcus Fuller 7117/2006 ••••• CITY TAC MEMBER PERRIS 101 North 'D' St., AHMAD ANSARI Perris 92570 Public Works Director RTA 1825 Third St., MARK STANLEY Riverside 92517-1968 Director of Planning RANCHO MIRAGE 69-825 Highway 111, BRUCE HARRY Rancho Mirage 92270 Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD 3900 Main St., Deputy Public Works Director/ Riverside 92522 City Engineer ~IVERSIDE COUNTY GEORGE JOHNSON 1/t/I Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon St., Transportation and Land Management Riverside 92501 Agency " ( I JUAN PEREZ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Deputy Director of Transportation v 4080 Lemon St., Transportation and Land Management Riverside 92501 Agency SAN JACINTO 201 E. Main St., HABIB MOTLAGH San Jacinto 92583 Contract City Engineer 8L SUN LINE 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms EUNICE LOVI 92276 Director of Planning TEMECULA BILL HUGHES 43200 Business Park Director of Public Works/City Engineer Dr., Temecula 92590 Public Works Department IWRCOG 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501 RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2006 TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL 951-943-6100x237 951-943-8591 aansari@cityofperris.org 951-565-5130 951-565-5131 mstanley@riversidetransit.com 760-770-3224 760-770-3261 bruceh@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us 951-826-5575 951-826-5542 TBoyd@riversideca.gov 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 GJohnson@rctlma.org 951-955-67 40 951-955-3198 jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net 760-343-3456 X119 760-343-3845 elovi@sunline.org 951-694-6411 951-694-6475 bill.hughes@cityoftemecula.org 951-955-8304 951-787-7991 berger@wrcog.cog.ca.us • ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL . Habib Motlagh Contract City Engineer trilake@adelphia.net Mike McCoy m~ri~~tran~ Senior Planner Planning Department Randy Viegas Project Manager randyv@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us Siobhan Foster sfoster@riversideca.gov Juan Perez Deputy Director of Transportation jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us George Johnson Director of Transportation GJohnson@rctlma.org Eric Skaugset, Assistant Engineer eskaugset@sanjacintoca.us Ron Parks Deputy Public Works Director -AhUP-> U>1bl.A.v(\ C-Cl \~V\ s qo ({-3<?"3-~'l Oct 'to<=! b~3-112q C\l\'L-\<l_ C.O\blAv'Y'\Qd,,+.CA..-~O v' ~AJl ~'>lZ-•b•f.c lJP.A.tiV Citoso.•~s ea,.,(<41-· s'f-i.o ft1.o1>,a.1wf..P e..""'s....., >'-,t.o~.r. ~"'""' FrtJ ALa.moL~olo.. M unio/AL £114 /?fSoofct.-? Fred Al.Am MER e (4.fteo. ~ (} 'fo'I-5'15-3760 -S'(efht#I R°Jb05 /'1v~IC~ ~ /<~~VYce4@1Gt<.) p ..,·_1[..., CA.b• J.A C.:-PC'D \?o q~'(-7~ -1'/Bg -=sJ L 'Tv ';"}-\. T fl"\ \i ' \ r\ 1ot "3~ e.,. 1 \~ ~A._,· ___ ~4 ~ \IRL:>K® 90-C·i ~ .9'{ ~r-y/ V.,,:,1111~1 C,ftt r!-JU,,,c.c:.v/,., 't.n -""'f-/A'f>7 bvyl ~f;littJ5~~c.r;;y~e.e.u~ H7 ~~J6 ;Jn£.~ f?C/rc /)o._~dk JZ.-U"c_ 7117/2006