Loading...
10 October 11, 2006 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10: 00 a.m. Wednesday, October 11, 2006 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and. Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements canbe made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 5. PRESENTATION - INSTITUTE OF • TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2006 TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR FACILITIES FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2006 Page 2 7. PUBLIC HEARING • COMMUTER RAIL FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT - ALLOCATION OF SECTION 5307 AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Page. 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing on the revised Program of Projects for the Riyerside San Bernardino urbanized area; 2) Approve the FY 2006/07 revised Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 Program of Projectsfor the Riverside -San Bernardino urbanized area; 3) Direct staff to add the project funding into the Regional Transportation Improvement • Plan; 4) Approve an allocation of $15,068 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds as local match for the rehabilitation and renovation project; and 5) Amend the Commuter Rail Program's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). 8. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the .Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. if there are less_ than 2/3 of the Commissionmembers present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. . 9. CONSENT CALENDAR ' - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 9A. ,FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY Page 5 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (Plan) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Cathedral City. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2006 Page 3 9B. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Page 11 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2007/11 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (Plan) for Local Streets and Roads for the county of .Riverside. 9C. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 12 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an allocation of Local Transportation Planning funds totaling $336,825 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) .and $617,513 to Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. 9D. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 19 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 9E. AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF ELEVATORS AT METROLINK STATIONS Page 25 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-25-042-00 with Amtech Elevator Services for elevator maintenance services to amend the term and rates of the agreement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2006 Page 4 9F. ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 CITY OF BANNING TRANSIT SERVICES Page 27 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate $78,695 of Local. Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to the city of Banning's transit services to cover FY 2005/06 operating costs. 9G. REQUEST FROM CARE CONNEXXUS, INC. AND PEPPERMINT RIDGE FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS CAPITAL MATCH FOR THE SECTION 5310 PROGRAM . Page 28 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $10,667 to Care Connexxus, Inc. and $18,367 to Peppermint Ridge in Measure A Specialized Transit funds to provide the required capital match for the Section 5310 program; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-036-00 with Care Connexxus for $10,667 and Agreement No. 07-26-043-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $18,367 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 9H. AGREEMENT NO. 07-72-046-00 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE CAJALCO/1-15 INTERCHANGE Page 30 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-046-00 with Jacobs Civil Inc. (Jacobs) for the preparation of a project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the Cajalco Road/I-15 interchange for a not to exceed amount of $750,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve adjustments to the FY 2006/07 budget for a $750,000 increase in revenues and a $750,000 increase in expenditures. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2006 Page 5 91. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 07-65-047-00 FOR THE JOINT FUNDING OF THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAN JACINTO AND UPPER SANTA MARGARITA WATERSHEDS Page 65 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-047-00 between the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the county of Riverside, and the Commission for the joint funding of the Western Riverside Special Area Management Plan for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds; and 2) Allocate an additional $16,210 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) funds to assist in the funding of technical support for the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). 10. WESTERN COUNTY FREEWAY STRATEGIC STUDY PHASE 11 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 73 1) Award Agreement .No. 07-31-051-00 to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas to perform the Western County Freeway Strategic Plan Phase II effort for •$724,504, which includes a contingency of $242,138; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-052-00 with the county of Riverside and the city of Temecula for their 1 /3 participation in funding the study effort (up to $241,501 each); 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Approve adjustments to the FY 2006/07 budget for a $483,002 increase in revenues and a $724,504 increase in expenditures. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2006 Page 6 11. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH FOR THE MULTI -COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN Page 83 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct an environmental .justice analysis and community outreach to supplement the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) currently underway. 12. FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 TRANSIT OPERATOR PERFORMANCE STATISTICS REPORT, STATUS OF PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TRANSIT VISIONING PROCESS Page 85 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the presentation on the FY 2005/06 Transit Operator Performance Statistics Report, the role of the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as an aid in . assisting transit operators in determining cost efficiency, and a report on the •transit visioning process. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides. the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and .any other items related to Commission. activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2006 Page 7 15. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 390842 Name of parties: RCTC v. Arlene Griffith, et al. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties:. RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners 16. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 8, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL October 11, 2006 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District U' City of Banning City -of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of. Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City.of Riverside. City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET OCTOBER 11, 2006 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS X cJ 6 gyL, CY''� 7,y6-OV /14 O "-1- � I2isitY "ex `' V\v1<2., I,ct Vv✓1i V\`, i9a fCxk.N70 ` tAGt11v\a\GL, c,[Ia 6 ;wc,334, Q3 c.-,,_7` e� i n f tLG 4/ , iA lJaS�✓z_ �-.,v A-- r_,-'7--- A cYe-.4.,,, 44 ii 6,71 Sao � k l C 1<C_ GS l 6 B ---P R6/eg.5c& Aril,-,x-,a . a i /V cl6L,e--1 ��2 ,eye,/ ., 7,</i " 1--3:771,- z.4,-,42-/4(72i-P634-C"-.7? .,,e-;_ytd 9513-61:04. Cr Tr of ./Y`IEeu4-1 6"s Y-«i'0 cfl[3sers I ` (.� f;) e�5�-x�� 7G 2.?5;ii - T— � / f4/(7nlP72._- ��lL v ,4./4 a t�o�10 �•A n5 �_�ofn dcitc Cr,� 7f.Q,VLin 1 'Re, „ �CR. Le) �'4iC; 1//2�ry eh vleyellZl)c7". pc-rt.. ��s..fec. 4sr0247i77%--r- t "t A-21 a f .Nr l{-L_�=7 R. L,,, G am( -� S- /14 A ( of-L- r---y (2, Ac,A6, (e,e„ft. et-)41-eie,w a„) 4 ,.a<,,..,/ o � >Le 7C - �. --" ) K\ht.( n In 'h\\1 G v n r S� � T/.'(= " A ),r1 (' 1 • .Pr car i/e ), . C AG (MkS/9- -J # 6) ff . at�I1I A/) ,G/7+9 t-2.-- /4 - t,LY j L.S 0 P"1 /f-- , ii' <-0 ,*G> � 1 � ,. t, � \V C' 1 6l 5 /� �OI P <V ��� IBC 6! S (') � `� s CA-nae'4v., C't. yJo,t/Ai,, f�,,)s nR��—,4T sP�,.k_.& egfu4o„),,...,Q gym. C ate Speakers shall complete the following: DETACH AND -SUBMIT -TO -THE CLERKOF THE -BOARD DATE: /0////0( PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ud' AGENDA ITEM NO.: IAS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: SUBJECT OF AI+hOvMCe Sc4edvic of .-MTeleraced PUBLIC COMMENTS: 6•Powt4'Fort(A t WI vikco G d- C V46. s4,4r SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: on.r AYi7 G M SQi'1 "Af�Vci TEL. NO.:gs1 7e4/-3Sa6 ADDRESS: L,m S 1- l Street � / REPRESENTING: SOY+ h C41 /1'• 43-xaC/G'rram .114. 14. n I1 f Name of Group BUSINESS AD R1VCV.SAC ZSo� City Zip Code RCTC/nk 10/03 TEL. NO.: Calendar Advisory CONTACT: Don Rhodes, 213/236-1840 Jeff Lustgarten, 323/466-3445 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 10, 2006 WHO: WHAT: WHEN: WHERE: COST: CONTACT: Weff'arn Riverside CoG ckArvokoka, kpl Pa_ocvd Soon NVTa PUBLIC WORKSHOPS TO ADDRESS LONG-TERM LOCAL, REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG is inviting local elected officials, planners, interested parties and the general public to workshops throughout Southern California to obtain local feedback regarding SCAG's integrated growth forecasts, proposed allocation methodology and application of planning factors identified in state housing law. These workshops will assist SCAG in its development of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment mandated by the state to address overall housing needs. These workshops will also assist in the allocation of the fair share of Southern California's housing needs to each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. October 30, 2006 (9:30 a.m. — 1:30 p.m.) Western Riverside Council of Governments 4080 Lemon Street, 15t Floor Conference Rooms 2A & 2B Riverside, CA 92501 Attendance is free. Rick Bishop, (951) 955-7985 [EDITOR'S NOTE: For more information, please contact Jeff Lustgarten or Dan Witzling I of Cerrell Associates at (323) 466-3445.] Calendar Advisory CONTACT: Cheryl Collier, 213/236-1942 Jeff Lustgarten, 323/466-3445 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 10, 2006 �G oACI1e II ct Va��ty OCr PUBLIC WORKSHOPS TO ADDRESS LONG-TERM LOCAL, REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS WHO: Southern California Association of Govemments (SCAG) WHAT: SCAG is inviting local elected officials, planners, interested parties and the general public to workshops throughout Southern California to obtain local feedback regarding SCAG's integrated growth forecasts, proposed allocation methodology and application of planning factors identified in state housing law. These workshops will assist SCAG in its development of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment mandated by the state to address overall housing needs. These workshops will also assist in the allocation of the fair share of Southern California's housing needs to each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. WHEN: October 31, 2006 (9:30 a.m. — 1:30 p.m.) WHERE: Coachella Valley Association of Governments CVAG Offices 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119 Palm Desert, CA 92260 COST: Attendance is free. CONTACT: Catherine McMillan, (760) 346-1127 [EDITOR'S NOTE: For more information, please contact Jeff Lustgarten or Dan Witzling of Cerrell Associates at (323) 466-3445.] DETACH AND SUBMIT -TO -THE -CLERK OF -THE BOARD -- Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: /0 PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF i AGENDA ITE NAME: It�(f/� ) C-HC-' ' t /6-7 1r Erket It k 'ADDRESS: if-r* V Street REPRESENTING: CI 56 / 2'1, Name of Group TEL. NO.: 9-61 s7 City Zip Code BUSINESS ADDRESS: "t:5-7 _ ./ ,/162_ TEL. NO.: g 1 (f% �3t�/J RCTC(nk 10/03 L'+llcll7t�l1�S�. 1�4�!jPs � ��'G V\OSvO o� -zo� Z�°ne.tt 1 /c I/ c6 Directions from 4080 Lemon St. to Highgrove Metrolink site Take I -215 North. toward San Bernardino, Exit Center St. Highgrove, Past on Center St. across RR tracks and tum right on 'Transit Ave. (The 1st St. past the RR tracks), by turning tight on Villa will give access to the north end of the vacant 35 acres. Directions to South end: Take Villa St. eastward 2 blocks, turn right on Prospect Ave. and right on Citrus St. to have access to south end of the 35 acres. Proceed west on citrus St. and connect to Iowa Avenue drST, or 13etttown Naimyrita Ave W t.oclen'St a Urtrversrry Of r ,aiilornia-Rrrersde A gn �4aPQe+est, u?c Tali rights reserv_ed._Use Subject to License/Copyright This map is informational only. No representation is made or warrant risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers assume no responsibility For http://www.ntapquest.com/maps/print.adp?mapdata=0E4WNszgW9zh 951-683-4994 (Home) 951-683-7258(Fax) 800m '24Qtttt Box Swings Mouratatri Path WOOS NAVTEQ East 31.a. " J3wcrteal" J3cvuiett ehatman 951-255-6648 (Cell) highgrovenews@adelphia.net Speakers shall complete the following: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: X PUBLIC COMMENTS; AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: Eti Jv4.-/\I,1 SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: 4 ADDRESS ���'�C�� /G,., .� N Street REPRESENTING: l �. DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: /6— i TEL. NO.: f S %-52,3 rJ �` �1 7 City Zip Code ` Name of Group r 2 BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO.: ,7 J/ - % /-3 a RCTC/nk 10/03 DETACH AND SUBMIT -TO -THE -CLERK -OF -THE -BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: IlJ— SUBJECT OF j� 1 � PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 14�QV�ciYu ' (`� tvo 1 Stir; 0 A AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: D xle\ S SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: w: d� EL. NO.: (TO (I) rig 3 tio ADDRESS: .2- 2 g 74-fr •�IG(? S i�Y:(NeL I-��,�ac� Ll q'L 3t 73 Street City Zip Code REPRESENTING: A (q h G w O BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 C5A I ZEE L1 Name of Group /gyp b Letaev R 10.p-04Q-- 12- ' TEL. NO.: I ! 0f) c 3 3 "3 , g 2. / t DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: SUBJECT OF L`�� PUBLIC COMMENTS: I PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pe rINS t I �� ItIE'� LCC-41 Or frs�;( 5414 AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 Street SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: TEL. NO.: l`7S I) ��5 1 W5:.? 3 H(j. 114c4cik pp _ pis ick 6 0 City Zip Code �cWA0-1/ kaid ASSDC-16 10A Name of Group TEL. NO.: \-\\ ooRcLout To: Honorable Chair, Vice -chairs, and Commissioners, Riverside County Transportation Commission From: Letitia Pepper Date: October 11, 2006 Re: Perris Valley Line; UCR Commuters Already Served by Existing Downtown Riverside/Market Place Metrolink Station; Advantages of Highgrove Station Location versus Watkins Drive Proposed Locations Introduction I attended the RCTC workshop on the Perris Valley Line (PVL) held in La Quinta this summer. During the public comment period of that workshop, I spoke about some of the problems with locating the proposed two Metrolink stations on Watkins Drive at Valencia Hill and on Watkins Drive at Spruce (in the City of Riverside), rather than at the proposed Highgrove site. I am well aware of such problems, having lived within a mile of the proposed Watkins Drive locations for 24 years, and having attended University Neighborhood Association meetings for many years. This memo (1) responds to some of the issues raised by Commission members in response to my comments, specifically concerns that UCR is a commuting school and needs a Metrolink station, and (2) alerts the RCTC Commissioners to VCR's new proposal to locate a hazardous waste storage facility and exit onto Watkins Drive in the same area as the proposed Watkins-Drive-at- Valencia-Hills-UCR Metrolink station. (1) UCR Is Already Served by the Downtown Riverside/ Market Place Metrolink Station Metrolink already provides service for UCR commuters. The Downtown Riverside/Market Place Metrolink station currently serves students, faculty and staff, who can commute from that station to UCR at Big Springs and Watkins Drive via RTA bus: (See Exhibit 1, RTA schedules (weekday, east- and westbound, and weekends) for Route 1, stops 9 (Market Place Station) and 11(Big Springs & Watkins Drive). In fact, all UCR students_may now ride any RTA bus for free. Faculty and staff may purchase RTA passes for about half the normal price. (See Exhibit 2, UCR website info re free travel on RTA buses.) The RTA Route 1 weekday, eastbound schedule shows that RTA buses leave the Market Place Metrolink station in the mornings/ and reach UCR at Watkins Drive and Big Springs Road at the following times: 5:06/5:30; 5:46/6:10; 6:28/6:54; 7:13n:42, 7:34/8:01, 7:55/8:20, 8:18/8:42; 10:37/11:00; 12:41/1:06, and in the afternoon and evening leave the Metrolinlc station and reach UCR at 3:05/3:32; I 6:08/6:33; 6:44n:09; 6:59/7:23; 7:22/7:46; 7:49/8:10; 8:08/8:29. (See Exhibit 1) The westbound version of Route 1 provides transportation from UCR to the Metrolink station and RTA service is available on weekends. (See Exhibit 1.) (2) UCR Has the Infrastructure Needed to Provide Easy Access to the Proposed Highgrove Metrolink Station If RCTC adopts Highgrove as the end -of -the -line station for the PVL, then Metrolink commuters could be transported to and from the Highgrove station by an extension of VCR's existing shuttle system. According to UCR, LRDP 2005, most of UCR's commuting students commute to campus from less than five miles away. This is reflected by UCR's Campus Shuttle system, which covers three close -to -campus routes: Braveheart Loop, Bear Runner, and Trolley Express, and provides continuous, 10 minute service from 6:50 a.m. to 8:50 p.m. (See Exhibit 3, UCR website info re its campus shuttle system.) Commuters could be transported between Watkins Drive at Big Springs (the campus's eastside entrance) and a Highgrove Metrolink station by extending the reach of one or more of these three routes. According to Mapquest.com, the distance such a route extension would cover would be less than 5 miles, one way, and would take about 7-8 minutes to traverse. (See Exhibit 4, MapQuest info re traveling from Highgrove to UCR) (3) The Highgrove Location Could Provide Easy Access for Students Commuting to UCR via Bus as Well as via Metrolink The potential Highgrove station location of 35 acres has sufficient space, unlike the proposed locations on Watkins Drive, to provide for not only Metrolink but bus commuter services. The Highgrove location thus would allow a UCR shuttle to pick up students who are commuting from areas not yet served by Metrolink, e.g., Victorville, Hesperia and Barstow. (4) Watkins Drive as Proposed Metrolink Station Site Becomes More Problematic as UCR Now Proposes to Locate a Hazardous Waste Storage Facility on Watkins Drive at Valencia Hill Within the past two months, UCR sent out an announcement (Exhibit 5) that it proposes to locate a new Environmental Health & Sciences building on Watkins Drive, between Valencia Hills and Blaine, with an exit onto Watkins Drive. This building will serve as UCR's storage facility for all hazardous wastes generated/used by its campus, as well as by such future facilities as UCR's proposed medical school. This means Watkins Drive will be the transportation route for the removal of hazardous wastes from VCR's campus. If this proposal is adopted, Watkins Drive, which is already heavily used as a route by campus traffic seeking to reach both north and southbound lanes of the 215 freeway, and to get from Riverside's downtown, Eastside and University neighborhoods to Moreno Valley and/or Riverside's Canyon Crest neighborhood, will be even more congested. Existing traffic congestion is one reason the University Neighborhood Association has opposed locating Metrolink stations on Watkins Drive. To stop cut -through freeway traffic (that sought to avoid freeway congestion on the 215 freeway around the Blaine and University exits), and to slow down speeders, area residents obtained a series of stop signs on Watkins Drive between the 215 freeway and Spruce. Thus, there are a total of seven stop signs (at Mt. Vernon, Knox Court, Broadbent, Big Springs Road, Valencia Hills, Canyon Crest Drive and Spruce, plus a stop sign (at Blaine) on the approximately two miles of Watkins Drive between the 215 freeway entrances and exit onto Watkins Drive and Spruce Street. (See Exhibit 6 showing stop sign and signal locations.) Requiring Metrolink commuters to navigate this many traffic stops in such a short distance before they reach a Metrolink station is not a very efficient use of commuting time. in addition, Watkins Drive is the primary route for parents taking children to and from Apple Tree learning Center, the UCR Child Development center, and Hyatt and Highlander Elementary schools every morning and afternoon. This is another reason Watkins Drive is not a good location for one, let alone two, Metrolink stations and the commuter traffic they will generate. 3— EXHIBIT 1 Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Site Search I Quick Links Go I Maps And Timetables Route Schedules Employment Rules And Policies Meetings Transportation NOW Automated Trip Planner Passes & Tickets Online Transit Links Contact Information Email Us F Comments Form Customer Information Center: 1-800-800-7821 or (951) 565-5002 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 (951) 565-5000 fail* I Route Quick Link J « Previous Page I Route Schedules » 1 Download a PDF of this route Maps I Route 1 Page 2 of 3 Home > Route Sched i IJCR%DuWntoinrn Te.rrriina W Coo"ana Merolt�lk Flouting and timetables subject to change. / X:/ Also serving Downtown, RCC, Ce6Fen3a Baptist University, Perkview Community Hospital, Galeria at Tyler, Kaiser Hospital, Carona, Sunday schedule on lbBqvih! holidays: Near Years Day, Memory Day% Independence Day, tabor Day. Na service we Thanksgiving Day and Christmas [ter• RTA Hriadquarbor 3rd st 1 : 10 12113 14 .. 15 16 22 25 29 • 49 ' 149 r, 204 0not rmis AferSity DT ti rminal Terminal Staging, University Ave. Mission tin 8 rd C. 49, RfA 204 Ts Magnolia & Elirabellt 1213', 74 i RIVERSIDE 4daltithrow lean 81+ren 1 1 10_12 13 14!' . f 15 1 21 1 27 '.1491 ' lath s 1s 20 3' Genesis§ at Tyler La Sierra Unites* lmm 2 roe! 2 i6. 16E- Amtrak Central knington RTA and Corona. Cruiser wie he the other agencies Day and 31-Day Pass at the following ktcationo • Magnolia & McKinley • E. 6th St. & Rimpau • W. 6th St & Smith • EAV 6th Si & Maas • Magnofie & Promenade • Magnolia & Fullenon • Magnolia & Ontario 1 ' Corona Cruiser '', Legend I Map not to scale 0 Time andeor Transfer Point 0 Transfer Poch and Infarmaten 0 Medical Facility cil=1 Flo service on some trips http://www.riversidetransit.com/maps/001.htm 10/10/2006 2:16 PM Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 1 of 2 11.:MMOJIlltlat Riverside Transie eigeocy Site Search Quick Links Maps And Timetables Route Schedules Employment Rules And Policies Meetings Transportation NOW Automated Trip Planner Passes & Tickets Online Transit Links Contact Information IF Email Us I. Comments Form Customer Information Center: 1-800-800-7821 or (951) 565-5002 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 (951) 565-5000 RIDING THE BUS PROGRAMS FARES & & EVENTS PASSES Home j Site M I Col MARKETING ABOUT & MEDIA RTA I Route Quick Link << Previous Page I Route Schedules » I Download a PDF of this route Map I Weekdays Westbound I Weekdays Eastbound I Weekend Route 1 Big Springs & Watkins A.M. times are in N, P.M. times are in BOLD I Times are approximate W. 6th & Magnolia Galleria Magnolia Brockton Magnolia Downtown Corona Smith & at Tyler & Adams Arcade & RCC Terminal Station McKinley Home > Route Schi Marke� 3rd & Place Chicago F. Sta. ‘c6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i' — — — 4:30 4:39 4:45 4:52 4:59 5:06 5:14 St 3p 4:30 4:37 4:55 5:08 5:17 5:25 5:32 5:39 5:46 5:54 6:IV 5:10 5:17 5:35 5:49 5:58 6:06 6:13 6:21 6:28 6:37 bb: 51( 5:50 5:57 6:15 6:30 6:41 6:49 6:56 7:06 7:13 7:25 7 ',12 6:10 6:19 6:37 6:52 7:03 7:11 7:18 7:27 7:34 7:44 e:01 Operates on school days only 7:34 — 7:46 6:30 6:39 6:57 7:12 7:24 7:32 7:39 7:48 7:55 8:04 (X: V 6:50 6:59 7:17 7:33 7:46 7:55 8:02 8:11 8:18 8:26 $i;y2 7:10 7:19 7:37 7:53 8:07 8:15 8:22 8:31 — 8:42 11.51 7:30 7:39 7:59 8:15 8:28 8:36 8:43 8:52 — 9:04 ri 7:50 7:59 8:18 8:34 8:45 8:53 9:00 9:09 — 9:21 q : 76 8:10 8:19 8:38 8:53 9:04 9:12 9:20 9:29 — 9:41 e1i517 8:30 8:39 8:58 9:13 9:24 9:32 9:39 9:48 — 10:00 10:15' 8:50 8:59 9:18 9:34 9:46 9:54 10:01 10:10 — 10:22 ID;,4 9:10 9:17 9:36 9:52 10:04 10:12 10:21 10:30 10:37 10:45 I I ; 00 9:30 9:36 9:54 10:11 10:23 10:31 10:40 10:49 — 11:01 if;ig, 9:50 9:56 10:15 10:32 10:45 10:53 11:02 11:11 — 11:23 1431 10:10 10:16 10:35 10:52 11:05 11:13 11:22 11:31 — 11:43 It; 0 10:30 10:36 10:55 11:12 11:25 11:33 11:42 11:51 — 12:04 12 ; V 10:50 10:56 11:15 11:32 11:46 11:54 12:02 12:11 — 12:24 lii * yi 11:10 11:16 11: 35 11:52 12:06 12:14 12:23 12:33 12:41 12:51 110-ib 11:30 11:36 11:56 12:13 12:26 12:34 12:43 12:53 — 1:06 i . 12 11:50 11:56 12:16 12:33 12:47 12:55 1:04 1:13 — 1:26 eltr)14.412 http://www.riversidetransitcom/schedules/001b.htm 10/10/2006 2:30 PM Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 2 of 2 12:10 12:16 12:36 12:53 1:08 1:16 1:25 1:34 — 1:47 ,Z1Z17 12:30 12:36 12:56 1:13 1:28 1:36 1:45 1:54 — 2:08 21,20 12:50 12:56 1:16 1:33 1:48 1:56 2:05 2:14 — 2:28 2:Qi' 1:10 1:16 1:38 1:55 2:10 2:18 2:27 2:36 — 2:50 3 :IR 1:30 1:36 1:58 2:15 2:30 2:38 2:47 2:57 3:05 3:15 3'.32. 1:50 1:56 2:18 2:35 2:51 3:01 3:10 3:20 3:27 3:36 1:53 2:10 2:16 2:38 2:57 3:13 3:23 3:32 3:42 — 3:54 N :It° 2:30 2:36 2:58 3:17 3:32 3:41 3:50 4:00 — 4:12 q :1 a 2:50 2:56 3:19 3:38 3:53 4:02 4:11 4:21 — 4:33 H .41 3:10 3:16 3:39 3:58 4:13 4:22 4:31 4:41 — 4:54 S t 10 3:30 3:36 3:59 4:18 4:33 4:42 4:51 5:01 — 5:14 S P. V 3:50 3:56 4:19 4:38 4:53 5:01 5:10 5:20 — 5:32 S s 4g 4:10 4:16 4:39 4:58 5:13 5:21 5:30 5:39 — 5:51 to . 67 4:30 4:37 5:02 5:22 5:36 5:44 5:52 6:01 6:08 6:17 G , 33 4:50 4:57 5:20 5:39 5:53 6:01 6:09 6:18 — 6:30 0 ; lh 5:10 5:17 5:40 5:59 6:13 6:21 6:29 6:38 6:44 6:53 1-: CI 5:30 5:36 5:57 6:14 6:28 6:36 6:44 6:53 6:59 7:08 7 : 25 5:55 6:01 6:22 6:39 6:53 7:00 7:08 7:16 7:22 7:31 746 6:30 6:36 6:54 7:09 7:21 7:28 7:35 7:43 7:49 7:57 g :143 6:50 6:56 7:14 7:29 7:40 7:47 7:54 8:02 8:08 8:16 b : N 7:10 7:16 7:34 7:49 8:00 8:07 8:14 8:19 - — 7:40 7:46 8:04 8:19 8:30 8:37 8:44 8:49 — — 8:10 8:16 8:31 8:45 8:55 9:01 9:08 9:13 — — 9:20 9:30 9:36 9:43 9:48 — — Riding The Bus I Programs & Events I Fares & Passes I Marketing & Media I About RTA Copyright ©1998-2006 by the Riverside Transit Agency. All rights reserved. Site Designed and Maintained by Zhaono Studios. http://www.riversidetransit.com/scbedules/001b.htm 10/10/2006 2:30 PM Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 1 of 2 11111.11�� Rif Prlida h61•3ii AgaIr.cy - Site Search I Go x Quick Links Maps And Timetables Route Schedules Employment Rules And Policies Meetings, Transportation NOW Automated Trip Planner Passes & Tickets Online Transit Links Contact Information Email Us Comments Form Customer Information Center: 1-800-800-7821 or (951) 565-5002 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 (951) 565-5000 Home I,Site Mali I Ca RIDING PROGRAMS FARES & MARKETING ABOUT THE BUS & EVENTS PASSES & MEDIA RTA Route Quick Link « Previous Page 1 Route Schedules » I Download a PDF of this route Map I Weekdays Westbound I Weekdays Eastbound I Weekend Route 1 I eekdays estbounndo West Corona Station A.M. times are in PLAIN. P.M. sines -are in BOLD I Times are approximate Home > Route Schei 3rd &Marke�Downtown Magnolia Brockton Magnolia Galleria Magnolia 6th & hicag Place Terminal & RCC Arcade & Adams at Tyler & Smith Oattrkla McKinley 5irtl'LutA- 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I — — — 4:35 4:39 4:45 4:53 5:04 5:20 5:39 — — — 5:15 5:19 5:25 5:31 5:42 5:58 6:17 5:30 5:43 5:52 5:59 6:03 6:09 6:17 6:29 6:45 7:06 5:50 6:03 6:12 6:19 6:23 6:30 6:38 6:50 7:06 7:26 6:10 6:23 — 6:33 6:38 6:45 6:53 7:05 7:21 7:41 6:30 6:43 6:52 6:59 7:04 7:11 7:19 7:31 7:47 8:07 6:50 7:04 7:13 7:20 7:25 7:33 7:41 7:53 8:09 8:29 7:10 7:24 7:33 7:40 7:45 7:53 8:01 8:14 8:29 8:49 7:30 7:44 — 8:00 8:05 8:13 8:21 8:34 8:49 9:09 7:50 8:04 8:13 8:20 8:26 8:34 8:42 8:55 9:10 9:30 8:10 8:24 — 8:36 8:42 8:50 8:58 9:10 9:25 9:45 8:30 8:44 — 8:56 9:02 9:10 9:18 9:31 9:46 10:06 8:50 9:03 — 9:15 9:21 9:29 9:37 9:50 10:05 10:25 9:10 9:23 — 9:35 9:41 9:49 9:57 10:10 10:25 10:45 9:30 9:43 — 9:55 10:01 10:09 10:18 10:32 10:48 11:08 9:50 10:03 — 10:15 10:21 10:30 10:38 10:52 11:08 11:28 10:10 10:23 — 10:36 10:42 10:51 11:00 11:14 11:30 11:50 10:30 10:44 10:53 11:00 11:06 11:15 11:24 11:39 11:56 12:16 10:50 11:03 — 11:16 11:22 11:31 11:39 11:54 12:11 12:31 11:10 11:23 — 11:36 11:42 11:51 11:59 12:14 12:31 12:51 11:30 11:43 — 11:56 12:02 12:11 12:19 12:34 12:51 1:11 11:50 12:03 — 12:18 12:22 12:31 12:39 12:54 1:11 1:31 12:10 12:23 12:33 12:40 12:48 12:55 1:03 1:18 1:35 1:55 http://www.riversidettansit-com/schedules/001ahtm 10/10/2006 2:19 PM Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 2 of 2 1 12:30 12:43 — 12:56 1:02 1:11 1:19 1:33 1:50 2:08 12:50 1:03 — 1:17 1:23 1:32 1:40 1:54 2:11 2:29 1:10 1:24 — 1:37 1:43 1:52 2:00 2:14 2:31 2:51 1:30 1:44 — 1:67 2:03 2:12 2:20 2:34 2:51 3:11 1:50 2:04 — 2:17 2:23 _2:32 2:41 2.56 3:14 3:35 2:10 2:24 2:38 2:44 2:53 3:03 3:18 3:38 3:57 2:30 2:43 2:52 2:59 3:05 3:15 3:25 3:42 4:00 4:23 2:50 3:05 3:15 3:22 3:28 3:38 3:47 4:02 4:20 4:41 3:10 3:24 3134 3:41 3:47 3:57 4:08 421 4:39 5:00 3:30 3:44 — 3:68 4404 4:14 4:23 4:38 4:55 5:15 3:50 4:04 — 4:18 4:24 4:34 4:43 4:58 5:15 5:35 4:10 4:24 — 4:37 4:43 4:53 5:02 6:17 5:35 5:55 4:30 4:44 — 4:57 5:03 5:13 5:22 5:37 5:65 6:14 4:50 6:04 — 5:17 5:23 5:32 6:40 -5:53 6:09 6:28 5:10 6:24 5:33 5:40 5:46 5:54 8:02 8:15 6:31 6:49 5:30 5:44 6:52 5:69 6:06 6:13 6:21 6:34 6:49 7:07 5:50 6:03 6:11 6:18 8:24 6:32 6:39 6:52 7:07 7:25 6:20 6:32 6:40 6:47 6:53 7:00 7:07 7:19 7:33 7:49 6:50 7:02 7:10 7:17 7:22 7:29 7:38 7:47 8:01 8:17 7:20 7:32 7:40 7:47 7:52 7:59 8:06 8:17 8:31 8:47 7:55 8:07 8:15 8:22 8:27 8:34 8:41 8:50 - — 8:20 8:32 — 8:44 8:49 8:56 9:03 9:12 9:20 9:24 9:30 9:37 9:48 - - Riding The Bus 1 Programs 8 Events I Fares 8 Passes I Marketing 8 Media 'About RTA Copyright ©1998-2006 by the Riverside Transit Agency. All rights reserved. Site Designed and Maintained by Zhapoo Studios. http://www.riversidetransit.com/schedules/001a.htm 10/10/2006 2:19 PM Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 1 of 3 RI14RJd0 Trrnfit Agent] Site Search Quick Links Maps And Timetables Route Schedules Employment Rules And Policies Meetings Transportation NOW Automated Trip Planner Passes & Tickets Online Transit Links Contact Information ► Email Us ► Comments Form Customer Information Center: 1-800-800-7821 or (951) 565-5002 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 (951)565-5000 RIDING PROGRAMS THE SUS & EVENTS ' Route Quick Link FARES & PASSES Horne Site Map i Cof MARKETING & MEDIA « Previous Page ( Route Schedules » I Download a PDF of this route Map I Weekdays Westbound ( Weekdays Eastbound I Weekend Route 1 1 A.M. times are in PLAIN, P10f. times are' S = Saturdays only, trip does not run on Sunday ABOUT RTA Home > Route Soho o Big Springs & Watkins W. 6th & Magnolia Galleria Magnolia Brockton Magnolia Downto Corona Smith & at Tyler & Adams Arcade a RCC Term Station McKinley 1 2 3 4 5 S — — — 6:20 6:31 S — — — 6:50 7:01 6:40 6:47 7:04 7:20 7:31 7:10 7:17 7:34 7:50 8:01 7:40 7:47 8:04 8:20 8:31 8:10 8:17 8:34 8:50 9:01 8:50 8:57 9:14 9:30 9:41 9:20 9:27 9:44 10:00 10:11 9:50 9:57 10:14 10:30 10:41 10:20 10:27 10:44 11:00 11:11 10:50 10:57 11:14 11:30 11:41 11:20 11:27 11:44 12:00 12:11 11:50 11:57 12:14 12:30 12:41 12:30 12:37 12:54 1:10 1:21 1:00 1:07 1:24 1:40 1:51 1:30 1:37 1:54 2:10 2:21 2:00 2:07 2:24 2:40 2:51 2:30 2:37 2:54 3:10 3:21 3:00 3:07 3:24 3:40 3:51 3:30 3:37 3:54 4:10 4:21 4:10 4:17 4:34 4:50 5:01 4:40 4:47 5:04 5:20 5:31 5:10 8:17 6:34 5:50 8:01 6 7 8 6:43 6:48 6:55 — 7:13 7:18 7:25 — 7:43 7:48 7:55 8:13 8:18 8:25 — 8:43 8:48 8:55 — 9:13 9:18 9:25 9:53 9:58 10:05 — 10:23 10:28 10:35 — 10:53 10:58 11:05 — 11:23 11:28 11:35 11:53 11:58 12:05 — 12:23 12:28 12:35 12:53 12:58 1:05 1:33 1:38 1:45 2:03 2:08 2:15 2:33 2:38 2:45 3:03 3;08 3:15 3:33 3:38 3:45 4:03 4:08 4:15 4:33 4:38 4.45 5:13 5:18 5:25 5:43 5:48 5:55 6:00 6:13 6:18 6:25 6:30 4:50 Market- place Station 3rd & hicag 9 10 7:05 7:35 8:05 8:35 9:05 9:35 10:15 10:45 11:15 11:45 12:15 12:45 1:15 1:65 2:25 2:55 3:25 3:55 4:25 4:55 5:35 6:08 6:35 ri 7;1$ 7-: tk8 tb 8 �t8 cif qmS A a . imsg {:91 1 tl:71 1 IZr sd 1:2g 2-,d$ -peg 3:3S' u .,08 N -3Y 5:48 6 ,l$ e;KB http://www.riversidetransit.com/schedules/001c.hlm 10/10/2006 2:24 PM Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 2 of 3 5:40 5:47 6:04 6:20 6:31 6:43 6:48 6:65 — 7:06 6:10 6:17 6:34 6:50 7:01 7:13 7:18 7:25 — 7:35 6:40 6:47 7:04 7:20 7:31 7:43 7:48 7:10 7:17 7:34 7:50 8:01 8:13 8:18 stbound To Corona / are in BOLD Ties are apprercimate S = SaEurdays only, tri{Ldoes not run on Sunday 10 S— — S — 7:00 7:12 7:26 7:38 8:00 8:12 8:26 8:38 8:47 9:00 9:12 9:26 9:38 9:43 10:00 10:12 10:40 10:52 11:10 11:22 11:40 11:52 12:10 12:22 12:40 12:52 1:10 1:22 1:40 1:52 2:20 2:32 2:50 3:02 3:20 3:32 3:50 4:02 4:20 4:32 4:50 5:02 5:20 5:32 5:37 6:00 6:12 S 6:30 6:42 7:00 7:12 Market- place Station wntown Magnolia Brockton Magnolia Galleria Magnolia 6th & erminal & RCC Arcade & Adams at Tyler & Smith C McKinley 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 - 6:15 6:20 6:26 6:37 6:49 7:03 7:20 7• 1 yr - 6:45 6:50 6:56 7:07 7:19 7:33 7:50 - 7:24 7:29 7:35 7:46 7:58 8:12 8:29 7:47 7:54 7:59 8:05 8:16 8:28 8:42 8:59 - 8:24 8:29 8:35 8:46 8:58 9:12 9:29 8:54 8:59 9:05 9:16 9:28 9:42 9:59 — 9:24 9:29 9:35 9:46 9:58 10:12 10:29 9:50 9:55 10:01 10:12 10:24 10:38 10:55 — 10:24 10:29 10:35 10:46 10:58 11:12 11:29 — 11:04 11:09 11:15 11:26 11:38 11:52 12:09 — 11:34 11:39 11:45 11:56 12:08 12:22 12:39 — 12:04 12:09 12:15 12:26 12:38 12:52 1:09 — 12:34 12:39 12:45 12:56 1:08 1:22 1:39 - 1:04 1:09 1:15 1:26 1:38 1:52 2:09 - 1:34 1:39 1:45 1:56 2:08 2:22 2:39 — 2:04 2:09 2:15 2:26 2:38 2:52 3:09 - 2:44 2:49 2:55 3:06 3:18 3:32 3:49 - 3:14 3:19 3:25 3:36 3:48 4:02 4:19 - 3:44 3:49 3:55 4:06 4:18 4:32 4:49 - 4:14 4:19 4:25 4:36 4:48 5:02 5:19 — 4:44 4:49 4:55 5:06 5:18 5:32 5:49 — 5:14 5:19 5:25 5:36 5:48 6:02 6:19 5:44 5:49 5:55 6:06 6:18 6:32 6:49 - 8:24 6:29 6:35 6:46 6:58 7:12 7:29 - 6:54 6:59 7:05 7:16 7:28 7:42 7:59 - 7:24 7:29 7:35 7:46 7:58 8:12 8:29 8:05 8:10 8:16 8:27 - - S — — — 8:45 8:50 8:56 9:07 - - - http://www.riversidetransit.com/schedules/001c.htin 10/10/2006 2:24 PM EXHIBIT 2 UCR VCA: Transportation And Parking Services Page 2 of 3 Pass Program UCR Students ride any fixed -route RTA bus and Crest Cruiser for free. Simf your valid student ID card when you board. Click here for more information. • Vanpool Seats Still Available! Why commute alone? Reduce your commute costs and eliminate stress with saving commute choice- riding a UCR Vanpool! Seats are currently available on the Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, Redlands Tustin routes. We're even prepared to start new routes — all it takes is six committed riders! vanpool route information is available on the Vanpool Schedule page. Contaa Kent for more information. We require at least two participants willing to share driving responsibilities; minimum of six faculty and/or staff members are needed to begin a new vanp • Register Your Bike All bicycles operated or parked at UCR are required to have a current Califor Bicycle License. Transportation and Parking Services is providing FREE bic license registration to members of the campus community. Participants must their bicycle with them when they register. Come to the Parking Services offi time during normal working hours to register and receive your bike license. • Alternative Transportation On-line Enrollment Enrollment for all Alternative Transportation programs is processed through on-line enrollment form. Please read any updates for your program before sea the bottom of the page. Click on the spinning ENTER sign, located at the bot Alternative Transportation Enrollment . Enroll in Alternative Transportation programs Apply or renew using our online form. Rideshare Message Board A service for UCR commuters, interested in forming a carpool. View Board or Post Your Message . Back to Previous Page Transportation & Parking Services, University of California, Riverside 683 Linden Street, Riverside, CA 92521, (951) 827-8277 http://www.parking.ucr.edu/index.php?content=servioes/akternative_tr... 10/10/2006 3:47 PM UCR VCA: Transportation And Parking Services Page 1 of 3 Twrs Transportation A Parking Services' P,orking Information Contacts VICE CHANA ELIOR APM NISIRAiler Alternative Transportation Programs Cyclist & Walker Carpool Public Transit Vanpool Drop Off Services teed Ride Home Additional Benefits AT Newsletter Maps 2 Mile Radius Bike Racks ORY11i/taSrnar uthern 1 Commute' Visit this resource for ci alternatives, serving Rh San Bernardino , Orang Angeles and Ventura co The goal of Alternative Transportation is to reduce the total number of single occur vehicle trips made to campus by faculty, stag' and students. This goal supports Calii clean -air mandates and reduces campus and community congestion. A variety of programs and services are available to UCR faculty, staff, and students detailed description of the incentives available through Alternative Transportation c programs, click on the links listed above for a specific commute mode. **News** http://www.parking.umedu/index.php7content=services/alternative_tr... 10/10/2006 3:47 PM EXHIBIT 3 F Chicago Ave. Mande luttlie Se Beginning: Sept. 28, 2)66 throi10,hine 0, 2007 All shuttle services operate when ciosses ore in session only Spruce St. Pc Massachusetts Ave. Cental Ave. 8 > Bear Runner 1.21" * Braveheart Loop /Trolley Express Stop 0 Bear Runner Stop ( The Trolley Express and Braveheart Loops offer continuous 10 min. service from 6:50am to 8:50pm Bear Runner Offers continuous 30 min. service Monday - Thursday from 7:50pm to 11:45pm E. Campus Dr. /Sci. Lib. C) 7:50 8:20 8:50 9:20 9:50 10:20 10:50 11:20 Life Sciences/Rivera 0 7:52 8:22 8:52 9:22 9:52 10:22 10:52 11:22 Lot 6 0 7:54 8:24 8:54 9:24 9:54 10:24 10:54 11:24 Lot 30 O 7:57 8:27 8:57 9:27 9:57 10:27 10:57 11:27 Towne Centre 0 8:03 8:33 9:03 9:33 10:03 10:33 11:03 11:33 Grand Marc 0 8:05 8:35 9:05 9:35 10:05 10:35 11:05 11:55 Lot 240 8:07 8:37 9:07 9:37 10:07 10:37 11:07 11:37 Stonehaven 0 8:10 8:40 9:10 9:40 10:10 10:40 11:10 11:40 AEd 0 8:15 8:45 9: /5 9:45 10:15 10:45 11:15 11:45' For updated information, please refer to our website @ http://www.parking.ucr.edu or call (951)827-1281 Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside, CA Page 2 of 3 Site Search Quick Links Maps And Timetables Route Schedules Employment ' Rules And Policies Meetings Transportation NOW Automated Trip Planner Passes & Tickets Online Transit Links Contact Information ► Email Us ► Comments Form Customer Information Center: 1-800-800-7821 or (951)565-5002 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 (951)565-5000 Route Quick Link « Previous Pape I Route Schedules » I Download a PDF of this route Maps I Route 51 Home > Route Sched CrestCruis UCR -, Canyon,`:Crest toWne Centre Transit (sating and iir'net2D4e5 3�b1?CI CC mange Also ttsttvInv University of Ca6loMie, Ntyerside Canyon Greg Town Centre, N service on Saturdays or &Maps or the following holidays: Near Year's ante Memaliai Day. Independence Day, labor Day. Thanksgiving Day and Christmas �y Legend l Map nut to scale �0j Time sake Transfer Paint V "Trailer Point and a/carnation Canyon Crest Towne Centre Serving UC Riversic http://www.riversitietransit.com/maps1051.htm 10/10/2006 2:10 PM EXHIBIT 4 Directions Distance UNCrir, • CitrUS'St ' ": /-• *1' si. " )tr tfY--v attos t1liPOtig41. 5: End at 1023 Citrus St Riverside, CA 92507-1718, US WutoPekAssT—:- z Citrus St .001 0 2006 Ntiarauest Total Est. Time: 7 minutes -:- CAAPe446s-T,",a ilini c"; /,'," , ,.: __•%.-• - 0 , r Cr6:41mq:we ", .• km 6 -; llighere've,d -,,'-' - / .\ . 4-,/," '.', sostrin 07 - A.-'''''f' - fr " • ‘) < ez , , '"..... I U rn.H Ave ...' Rigbideulc, , ,t,..... ... - 9 0 LP 1.• ifr 192m '27eft ND.J 0.2006 NAVTEQ '600ft 200m 02006 NVINTEQ Total Est. Distance: 4.14 miles • • • - • • • .• ; !pie' r -J° _rri 5,t. ,,, LIAtliiante'St- • . , . Box - --,1"' - °-.. wiLtiiinibr . springs ' • ', - . L--'-., ` . Mountain University Av '' -,, 1 . 4,,- . /1 ;- 11. GO/ - ,-,4%, .:,.,..', LL .&/' :' -,-»ig.',JPa Av,e ' / .- -0 ,. ) ' ritorta Clubr, ',, _ Itroi Air, \ 4; r' Cc., - ' - 7 V''''' i entre! Ave 02006 MipOtrest, inc, —' - -4'----7)f Start: [4246-4353] Watkins Dr Riverside, CA 92507, US litip://wvvvv.mapquest.com/directions/main.adOdo=Prt&mo----ma&2si—... [START] N'A . 0:2006 NYNki.TtiS2 End: 1023 Citrus St Riversidg, CA 92507-1718, US CAA/011j ,Witt rote ) 10/10/2006 10:54 PM EXHIBIT 5 Notice of Public PROJECT REVIEW UCankH"vt R 1DNIA � MEETING Notice is hereby given that a Public Project Review Meeting will be held by the University of California, Riverside on the following item(s): PROJECT: Environmental Health & Safety Building 0950456) PROJECT MANAGER: Darius Maroufkhani UCR CLIENT: Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S) ARCHITECT: HDR Architecture, Inc. LOCATION: North of the intersection of Linden Street and Pentland Way, approximately 500 feet west of the Southwest comer of Watkins Drive and Valencia Hills Drive, east of the existing TAPS Building DESCRIPTION: To construct a new one story facility to provide approximately 18,000 assignable square feet (approx. 30,000 gross square feet) of office, office support, conference, training, laboratory and laboratory support, and temporary storage (indoor and outdoor) for hazardous materials with secondary containment. The project will include necessary utilities extensions, landscaping, pedestrian/bicycle access and a new vehicular access from Watkins Drive. OBJECTIVES: The core objectives for the project include (1) providing a long-term, consolidated campus facility of all EH&S functions; (2) Enhance and facilitate the critical services EH&S provides to the research, training, and administration community at UCR, (3) construct a building that is a model of environmental sustainability. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project will be subject to an Initial Study under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment that has not be substantially and adequately analyzed in a certified program EIR. PROJECT CONTACT: Darius Maroufkhani PHONE: (951) 827-1485 LOCATION MAP North T PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW MEETING #1 Bannockburn Village, Room J102 3615 Canyon Crest Drive Riverside, Calif. 92507 DATE AND TIME: September 27, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. Public Project Review Meeting #2 To be announced EXHIBIT 6 5 s- 14N • *.t • B • ..-:;•-,..'' .*!,$)// ,-1.. — 'La_ . - -1.-----.---,":'-; ka „IL ok,''f:.-, .1 ,$.. FDRD.'L, (4'.-:4 ,. "... t AV 7.6! . , ( i MINIMA: .../ .1''.1 i'''.e.f.t'Sf' -4.41 , ST , -er 0 •I'i•I', 11 I . I COUWEIA -a'7'!''.... 4SigliTi 't .i)- . ./'ir -''.--. '- i,,, 1Y ,,,d,' , AV _....:71.— —L 4"L'' .... ,...../L .1 . , , \ FsE!/: fromerr 10/, 'POrR, ' "fr q"'"g1 c`:.°11rA'' „ ilL1-12LILINtEE7 1 CIO. LEGEND ® — stop sign X = stol light = pr posed Watkins Dr. Metroli h k stations -,-, i '-'4>,- .-‘ -,, , - . t .. , ,,./t .. ... . Si "-,aL,xt " sLAIrr ' ' 2 - ' ' 2 ' ' ' L” L ^ ' ' MOUNTAIAV--, , ' 4/113647C -'1',...„'T,P. -t,,„1- . i''' , A7k-rfr '.--,`,P '-'7v '''' '"E-t."'Io '- -> zLS: . . .vm..,,,L:,17- i ',M iit. t .-.1.Di.] ,i: ., . ll NT:VERS.:I " L-LLL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE - 901,3 STAPLw • 4 rA 2 4 ' - /. RESERVE ° 4 zc'J LA,511'' •8•-•' ListrAttn.i,--; .t. ' _ • , . 4 ,e,,' . ,. ., i ,i', , - , 1 ' TR' - • , . , SOir . . - - 6 '5"" • rwEi t EL -in -TORT • FAX ,NO. . Oct. 11 2006 Oo• 12RM P1 October 11, 2006 Metro Link Stop in Hieligovc Board .Members Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside CA Dear Board Members.: Good morning, please accept this letter as my 3 minutes of speaking for I am not able to speak you in person I am home with a cold, ts� I am in support of putting a Metro Link Stop in Highgrove... The land that has been suggested by Barney Barnet couldn't be a better spot ... Lots of time and research has been put into th.. idea and I believe that if it is not taken into serious consideration we will regret it in the future. Our community has °vet 2,000 homes to be built here and what a great opportunity to give them a straight shot to keep them off the freeway and use the Metro lank stop. At our last C.'SA meeting wc- had a developer speak and a mentioned that it sounds like Pigeon Pass will he opened and with that Merino Valley would be coming through to use it also. V in our community many of us go to San Bernardino County to do all spending $$$$$,it is just much easier than trying to ger to any place in Riverside (Tyler Mali or Morello Valley Mall) ... So I see this as a great opportunity to brtng that money back to Riverside County.. There are many people and sutrounding communities that have spoke.a_nd ;even written statements in support of this idea and I also am supporting this Metro lick plan.: So in other words just make it easy on everyone and make a profit ESE and do it ... Bring that money back to Riverside County that is being spent over the County ine,,, Sincerely, t Melanie R 7imrnor DETACH AND SUBMIT -TO -THE -CLERK -OF -THE -BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE:T. SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: ❑ PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA( IT7 NAME: fAut SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: ADDRESS: -t•ID3 1,D�`={STEe r TEL. NO.: �s 4/6/*4.6 52.,-b, Street City Zip Code REPRESENTING: Ua'3i ,/ 51444b$ / e7/4- A ame of Group BUSINESS ADDSS: TEL. NO.: 4,032 RCTC/nk 10/03 AGENDA ITEM 6 MINUTES • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, August 9, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 10:09 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Jim Ayres Roger Berg Darryl Busch Bob Buster John Chlebnik Mary Craton Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Robin Lowe Bob Magee Frank West Roy Wilson PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Alex Bias Robert Crain Juan DeLara Dick Kelly Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ronald Oden Michael Perovich Gregory Pettis Ron Roberts Mary Roche Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Michael H. Wilson Barney Barnett, representing the Highgrove area and surrounding communities, requested cooperation from the Commission to work with San Bernardino County to secure acreage in the Highgrove area for a Metrolink station. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 2 Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that staff has reviewed the proposal and has communicated with agencies in San Bernardino to address the cost and usage of a station in the Highgrove area. Commissioner Bob Buster thanked Barney Barnett for his efforts on this issue and expressed support for the proposal and recommended securing the land in the Highgrove area for future transportation needs. Vice Chair Terry Henderson asked staff to evaluate the purchase of the land in the Highgrove area. Eric Haley responded that the Commission charged the consultants and staff to bring_ back a response on the viability of a Highgrove Metrolink station and there are still on going discussions. Chair Ashley concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Chair Ashley announced that there were revisions to Agenda Item 8, "2009 Measure A 10-Year Delivery Plan Approach, Assumptions and Criteria" on Attachments 1, 2 and 6. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 06-020, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH THE .AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR REAL PROPERTY PURCHASES" Eric Haley provided an overview of the resolution, which willauthorize the Executive Director to have authority to acquire property. M/S/C (Busch/Craton) to adopt Resolution No. 06-020, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Executive Director or Designee the Authority to Establish the Amount of Just Compensation for Real Property Purchases". Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 3 7, STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP STATUS REPORT Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview on the Strategic Partnership Advisory teams that are evaluating projects to assess feasibility as Public/Private Partnership (P3) projects. She introduced Corey Boock, Nossaman Guthner Knox and Elliott, LLP, to discuss background information on Pas as well as identifying issues to be considered. Corey Boock highlighted on the following: • Presentation Overview; • Introduction to P3s; • Overview of P3s; • P3 Delivery Models; and • Delivery Model Summary Eric Haley explained that the Commission is moving forward with P3s at a relatively brisk pace and asked Anne Mayer to provide a brief overview. Anne Mayer stated she and Eric Haley will be in Sacramento meeting with departmental agencies as well as elected officials to discuss the fact that the Commission does not have legislative approval to use any other delivery models other then Design Bid Build. She explained that the Commission is looking at projects to determine their feasibility so staff can return to the Commission with project specific information as well as continuing the P3 education process., Garry Grant, Meadowbrook area resident, expressed opposition to P3s due to the risks and indebtedness involved. Eric Haley responded that the Commission takes calculated risks in order to take advantage of opportunities. He explained that if the Commission went on a cash flow basis, it would be difficult to accelerate the development and construction of projects, including the SR-74 project. He explained that the P3 options could help accelerate the provision of infrastructure. Over the next few months as P3s becomes more specific and refined, interests and issues will be addressed. Vice Chair Terry Henderson reiterated that this is an educational process, no decisions have been made and this is an opportunity to consider alternative ways to address the County's transportation issues. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question regarding. P3 financing, Eric Haley replied that the areas of focus haven't changed dramatically and provided an overview of the points in the State's early legislative attempt that need to be addressed. He also explained that P3s would help with congestion and development issues and provided an overview of the standards that the Commission will require. Commissioner Jim Ayres expressed support for innovative thinking to address transportation issues. He encouraged the Commissioners share this program with their respective counsels to begin the education process. 8. 2009 MEASURE A 10-YEAR DELIVERY PLAN APPROACH, ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of the 2009 Measure A 10-Year Delivery Plan Approach, highlighting the following: • Items for Committee Consideration; • 2009 Measure A Western. County Highways; • Riverside County CETAP Corridors; • Project Scoping; • Measure Projects and Optional Projects; • Transportation Model Technical Approach; • Quantitative Benefit Measures; • Qualitative Benefits Measures; and • 10-Year Delivery Plan Scoping and Criteria Eric Haley requested the Commissioners share the 2009 Measure A 10-Year Delivery Plan with their Public Works Directors, City Managers and County Administrators 9. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley announced the SR-74 Grand Opening event being held on August 25, 2006 at 9 a.m. B. Chair Ashley provided an overview of the National Association .of Counties meeting that included a workshop that addressed working with railroads. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 5 10. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL ,COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners There were no matters for consideration under Agenda Items 10A, 10B, 10C, and 10D. 11 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation. Commission, the meeting adjourned at 1 1 :50 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 4:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at the Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, California 92253. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Barney Barnett, Highgrove area resident, expressed support for a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area and recommended that the Commission take action to purchase acreage in the Highgrove area for its construction. He reviewed his discussions with elected officials representing San Bernardino County regarding this area as well as the request to contact the property owners, referencing a letter date September 8th. A copy of the letter was distributed to the Commissioners. Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that the Commission must abide by certain procedures related to property owner rights and the Commission does not have a formal project identified for the property or funding identified for its acquisition, referencing the letter of response to Barney Barnett dated September 13th. A copy of the letter was distributed to the Commissioners. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 12, 2006 M/S/C (Ayres/Busch) to approve the July 12, 2006 minutes as corrected; page 15, paragraph 6, remove both instances of the word "study" 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley noted additional information for Agenda Item 9, "Forward Interest Rate Swap Transaction". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (R. Wilson/Roche) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE FINANCING THROUGH STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Receive and file the status report on Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) financing through Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 3 7B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2006. 7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006. 7E. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2006. 7F. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY SERVICES CONTRACT INCREASE 1) Approve a $400,000 increase for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7G. OBLIGATION AUTHORITY LOAN TO SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT Receive and file the Obligation Authority Loan Report. 7H. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM — QUARTERLY REPORT Receive and file the - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program Quarterly Report. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 4 71. CITY OF CORONA TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR GREEN RIVER ROAD AND EL CERRITO ROAD PROJECTS 1) Approve reprogramming of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds for the Green River Road project to include $200,000 for the environmental phase, $600,000 for the design phase, and $3,442,000 for construction; 2) Approve extending limits on the Green River Road project to Palisades Drive for plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) design work only; 3) Approve TUMF Regional Arterial Program funds for construction of the Green River Road project from State Route 91 to Dominguez Ranch Road; 4) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-539-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-72-539, to reflect the above changes; 5) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-038-00 for programming of $1 million in TUMF funds for the El Cerrito Road/I-15 Interchange improvement project to include $120,000 previously programmed for right-of-way and $880,000 in additional funding for the construction phase; 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 7) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $1.3 million 7J. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND CITY OF BLYTHE REGARDING STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA FUNDING Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-71-028 with city of Blythe (City) trading a total of $2,291,656 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Intra-county Palo Verde Valley formula funds with Measure A Western County highway funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 5 7K. FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE . CITIES OF LAKE ELSINORE, NORCO AND RANCHO MIRAGE Approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco and Rancho Mirage. 7L. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Approve the allocation of FY 2006/07 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area. 7M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program update. 7N. INTERSTATES 15/215 FREEWAY TRAFFIC DETECTION AUGMENTATION PROJECT 1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Cooperative Agreement No. 07-41-037-00 with Ca!trans for the 1-15/1-215 Freeway Traffic Detection augmentation project; and 2) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $2.3 million. 70. STATE ROUTE 91 COMMUTER EXPRESS BUS — ROUTE 794 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT` Approve the request from the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the Commission to provide 100% of the RTA's share in the operation of the Route 794 demonstration project costs, using Commuter Assistance Measure A funds, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for FY 2006/07. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 6 7P. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS Receive and file the report on State Transit Assistance (STA) funding apportionments. 7Q. FISCALYEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT — RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1) Allocate $3,888 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to cover additional operating costs; 2) Receive and file a report on implementation of a University Pass Program with the University of Riverside, California (UCR); and 3) Amend RTA's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the service changes, contingent upon compliance with Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) targets, as well as the implementation of the University Pass Program and implementation of Route 794, an express bus service along State Route 91. 7R. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 1) Allocate $833,657 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) due to a shortfall in federal funding and $25,000 in LTF for development of a Facilities Design Manual; 2) Approve SunLine's request to reprogram funding to purchase ten replacement and five expansion vehicles; and 3) Reprogram $194,317 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and $777,270 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds to purchase two expansion vehicles. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 7 7S. FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 AND 2007/08 CALL FOR PROJECTS: MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM — WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1) Approve the requests for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County for: • Blindness Support, Agreement No. 07-26-023-00 • Volunteer Center, Agreement No. 07-26-021-00 • Whiteside Manor, Agreement No. 07-26-024-00 in an aggregate amount not to exceed $323,364 in FY 2006/07 and $317,174 in FY 2007/08; 2) Approve interim funding in the amount of $32,500 for Care Connexxus, Agreement No. 07-26-022-00, covering the months of October through December 2006. Interim funding will enable the agency's services to continue without interruption; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to enter into funding agreements as appropriate; and 4) Direct staff to develop a specialized transit program geared towards on -going chemotherapy, radiation and dialysis treatment. 7T. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 07-72-030-00 WITH THE CITY OF CORONA FOR THE FUNDING AND PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE CAJALCO/ INTERSTATE 15 INTERCHANGE 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 07-72-030-00 between the city of Corona and the Commission for the preparation of a project report and environmental document (PR&ED) for the Cajalco/I-15 Interchange; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 8 7U. AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-014-03 WITH CHONG PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE TO PREPARE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-31-014-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Chong Partners Architecture Inc. to prepare plans, specifications and cost estimate (PS&E) for the additional amount of $141,225, including a three-month calendar extension to contract term, and a total not to exceed amount of $1,451,228; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7V. AGREEMENTS WITH PARAGON PARTNERS, LTD., OVERLAND PACIFIC CUTLER, INC., AND, EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION, REAL PROPERTY SEARCHES, IDENTIFICATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR REPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION SITES, COST ESTIMATES, AND UTILITIES RELOCATION SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 07-72-025-00 to Paragon Partners, Ltd., Agreement No. 07-72-026-00 to Overland Pacific Cutler, Inc., and Agreement No. 07-72-027-00 to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. to perform On -Call Right -of -Way (ROW) Acquisition and Relocation, Real Property Searches, Identification and Feasibility Studies for Replacement and Mitigation Sites, Cost Estimates, and Utilities Relocation Services (ROW services); 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute: the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of $300,000. 7W. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SECURITY .SYSTEMS AT THE METROLINK STATIONS Approve Agreement No. 04-25-962-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-25-962, with Inland Vault &'Security, Inc. for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Security Systems Maintenance Services to amend the term and rates of the agreement. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 9 • 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, Public Affairs Director, provided an overview of the Senate Appropriations Bill HR 5576, highlighting the earmarks for Riverside County, the legislative advocacy services and the release of a request for qualifications, AB 32 and SB 927. He then discussed Propositions 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, 1 E, and 90 and the impacts on Riverside County related to these bills. Commissioner Barbara Hanna stated that the California League of Cities (League) has taken an opposed position to Proposition 90 and has recommended that the individual cities not take a position. Vice Chair Terry Henderson concurred with Commissioner Hanna's statement and provided an explanation for the recommendation. She then discussed the basis for the League's position. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Stone) to: 1) Adopt the following positions on state ballot propositions: Propositions 1A & 1B — SUPPORT Proposition 90 - OPPOSE; and 2) Direct staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for federal legislative advocacy services. 9. FORWARD INTEREST RATE SWAP TRANSACTION Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, provided a summary of the Forward Interest Rate Swap transaction that secured an interest rate of 3.679% for 20-year financing of $185 million. 10. PRESENTATION — NEW COMMUTER EXCHANGE MOBILE EDUCATION VEHICLE Robert Yates, Program Manager, presented the new Commuter Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle, including the goal and objectives of the Commute Exchange Program and information about the construction of the new vehicle. The vehicle was present at the meeting location for Commissioners to tour. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 10 11 ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley reported on the: • 91 Advisory Committee and Riverside -Orange County Authority (ROCA) meetings on September 8th • Union Pacific Chief Executive Officer Reception B. Commissioner Bob Buster commented on the reception as the turning point in the relationship with Union Pacific. C. Commissioner Rick Gibbs extended appreciation to Will Kempton, Caltrans Director, and Mike Perovich, Caltrans District 8 Director, for accelerating the Los Alamos Road/I-215 interchange project. 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Governments Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Governments Code Section 54956.9 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 1 932-170-018 Biggerstaff 2 362-130-019 Portion of 362-130-010 gorchard 3 932-020-002 Austin Murrieta 4 569-040-007 569-040-031 SSR Investment Co., LP • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 11 There were no matters for consideration under Agenda Items 13A, 13B, and 13C. There were no announcements on Agenda Item 13D. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Friday, September 15, 2006, at the Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA 92253: Respectfully submitted, OSU6-49-&- Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 7 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 ' TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Fiscal Year 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment — Allocation of Section 5307 and Local Transportation Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing on the revised Program of Projects for the Riverside -San Bernardino urbanized area; 2) Approve the FY 2006/07 revised Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 Program of Projects for the Riverside - San Bernardino urbanized area; 3) Direct staff to add the project funding into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 4) Approve an allocation of $15,068 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds as local match for the rehabilitation and renovation project; 5) Amend the Commuter Rail Program's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commuter Rail Program is requesting an amendment to its FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan as follows: 1) North Main Corona Parking Structure Agenda Item 7 An FTA Section 5307 funding allocation in the amount of $1 million is requested to fund a portion of the construction- costs for the North Main Corona Parking Structure. The required local match for this project was previously identified through $9.5 million in State Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funds. If approved, the additional FTA Section 5307 funds will be used for a comprehensive security system that will include Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras as well as the associated monitoring and recording equipment; and 1 2) SCRRA/OCTA Rehabilitation and Renovation Project Earlier this year, the Commission approved $75,341 in FTA Section 5307 funds as the Commission's share for the SCRRA/OCTA FY 2006/07 rehabilitation and renovation costs for the Metrolink Keller Yard and Mail Dock project. Since that time, staff was notified that the project will require a 20% local match. As such, staff is requesting that $15,068 in Section 5307 funds be de -obligated and replaced with an allocation of LTF funds. If approved, the Commission's share of the costs for this project will remain at $75,341. Attached is the FY 2006/07 revised Program of Projects for the Riverside - San Bernardino urbanized area. Changes reflect $1 million in additional funding for the North Main Corona Parking Structure as well as a de -obligation of FTA Section 5307 funds in the amount of $15,068. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $15,068 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 221-33-86102..P3808 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Iti,,,„ Date: 9/25/06 Attachment: FY 2006/07 Revised Program of Projects Agenda Item 7 2 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2006/07 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projected) Apportionment Carryover Deobligate $156,762 - RIV 050525 - Electronic Passenger Information System Deobligate $15,089 - OCTA's Rehab and Renovation Project Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of Riverside, City of Riverside Transit Agency RCTC's Commuter Rail NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Corona, City of 1) Preventive maintenance Riverside, City of 2) Preventive maintenance 3) DAR (8) replacement vehicles 404) Office equipment & misc. items 5) Expansion of fleet service bay 6) Locator equipment for vehicles Riverside Transit Agency 7) Pamtmnsit vehicle replacement (23 vans) 8) Support vehicle replacement (5 cars & 2 trucks) 9) Debt service payment 10) Bus stop amenities 11) Capital maintenance spares 12) Capitalized tire lease 13) Shop equipment 14) Misc equipment 15) Support facilities - Admin bldg. 16) Support facilities - Maintenance 17) Support facilities - yard & shop 18) GFI fareboxes (8 Laidlaw & 5 RTA) 19) APC lease 20) ADP software 21) ADP hardware • 3 Bus Rail $7,755,596 $4,455,893 $3,883,191 $12,393,194 $0 $156,762 $0 $15,068 $11,638,787 $17,005,849 $6,217,698 $6,070,497 $5,421,089 $10,935,352 $145,600 $1,638, 000 $4,434,098 $6,070,497 FEDERAL DESIGNATED TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE PROJECT TYPE RECIPIENT $ 182,000 $ 145,600 Capital/Operating SCAG $ 100,000 $ 80,000 Capital/Operating SCAG $ 720,000 $ 598,000 Capital SCAG $ 50,000 $ 40,000 Capital SCAG $ 1,000,000 $ 800,000 Capital SCAG $ 150,000 $ 120,000 Capital SCAG $- 1,334,000 $ 1,107,220 - Capital SCAG $ 128,000 $ 102,400 Capital SCAG $ 2,043,275 $ 1,634,620 Capital. SCAG $ 135,434 $ 88,000 Capital SCAG $ 298,225 $ 238,580 Capital SCAG $ 220,000 $ 176,000- Capital SCAG $ 154,615 $ 123,692 Capital SCAG $ 14,300 $ 11,440 Capital SCAG $ 56,000 $ 44,800 Capital SCAG $ 62,000 $ 49,600 Capital SCAG $ 217,000 $ 173,600 Capital SCAG $ 172,382 $ 137,906 Capital SCAG $ 60,000 $ 48,000 Capital SCAG $ 560,600 $ 448,480 Capital SCAG $ 62,200 $ 49,760 Capital SCAG RivSan UZA FY 2006/07 RCM's Commuter Rail 22) SCRRA Rehab/Renovation - FY 07 RCTC's share $ 1,125,894 $ 405,986 Capital SCAG 23) RCTC's share of OCTA's FY 07 rehab and renovation $ 75,341 $ 60,273 Capital SCAG 24) Eastern Area Maintenance Facility (RCTC's Share) $ 2,261,000 $ 2,261,000 Capital SCAG 25) SCRRA Electronic Passenger Information System $ - $ (156,762) Capital SCAG 26) Perris Valley Line Preliminary Engineering - FY 07 $ 10,574,800 $ 2,500,000 Capital SCAG 27) North Main Corona Parking Structure $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 TOTAL: $ 22,757,066 $ 12,288,195 Approved: Original Approval Date: 7/12/2006 Revised: 9/25/2006 (Approval Pending) - Riv-San 11ZA FY 2006/07 4 • AGENDA ITEM 9A • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Cathedral City STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (Plan) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Cathedral City. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 10, 2006, staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit the Plans by June 12, 2006, for submission to the Commission on July 12, 2006. At its July 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but seven cities, and on September 14, 2006, the Commission approved the Plans for three additional cities. Subsequently, staff has received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the city of Cathedral City. The remaining three cities, Beaumont, Calimesa and Coachella, have been informed that no disbursement of Measure A funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement Plans for City of Cathedral City Agenda Item 9A 5 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2007 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Sheila McGrath, Interim Administrative Analyst Phone it: (760)770.0319 Date: August 281 2006 Item No. Project Name 1 Limits Capital Projects Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. _____.._� Public Works Department & Parks Maintenance __-_.._._----.-__.---___-_-.-----___.__--____.____..maintenance City wide maintenance operations including parking, median and street----,--,--,-----------___--- 1,688.2 844.1 ---._— -- Nghtenergy. 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportation and traffic related planning and development activities as well as highway design and related engineering activities. 1,728.4 310.6 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management. 4,890.2 95.9 4, Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance of traffic signal system. 136.5 136.5 5. Cagan' Improvement Projects Various Traffic 1 transportation related projects. 58,3338.4 3.172.3 $66,781.7 $4,559.4 rivers/ measureA5yrform RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Sheila McGrath, Interim Administrative Analyst Phone #: (760) 770-0319 Date: August 28, 2006. Item No. Project Name / Umits Capital Projects Project Type Total Cost ($000's) 1,888.2 Measure A Funds ($000's) 940.1 -------- 1. _�_—__ Public Works Department & Parks Maintenance .__--... City wide maintenance operations Including parking, median maintenance and street -light _____ ___T.___._._._—_—.._ -- 2. Engineering & Planning Departments energy. Transportation and traffic related planning and development activities as well as highway design and related engineering activities. 1,814.8 324.1 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management. 5,134.7 100.1 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance of traffic signal system. 136.5 136.5 5. Capital improvement Projects Various Traffic / transportation related projects. 58,338.4 11724 $67312.6 $ 4,677.1 /tIvera measureASyrforlu RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of.1 Prepared by: Sheila McGrath, Interim Administrative Analyst Phone # (760) 770-0319 Date: August 28, 2006. Item No. Project Name / Limits Capital Projects Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Public. Works Department & Parks Maintenance City wide maintenance operations -including parking, median maintenance and street ----- 2,088.2 -------- — - --- 1,044.1 -- -- - __-_ ___ _._______ . -419hter►er9Y• 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportation and traffic related planning and development activities as well as highway design and related engineering activities. 1,905.6 338.2 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management 5,391.4 104.5 4, Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance of traffic signal system. 136.5 136.5 5. Capital Improvement Projects Various Traffic / transportation related projects. 58,338,4 3.172.3 $67,860.1 $4,795.6 rivora/measu reASyrrorm 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2009 - 2010 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Sheila McGrath, Interim Administrative Analyst Phone #: (760) 770-0319 Date: August 28, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Capital Projects Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Works Department & Parks Maintenance City wide maintenance operations including parking, median maintenance and street 2,100.0 1,050.0 ___...__._....__.._... _-- light -energy. 2. Engineering & Planning Departments Transportation and traffic related planning and development activities as well as highway design and related engineering activities. 2,000.9 352.7 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management. 5,661.0 108.9 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance of traffic signal system. 136.5 36.5 5. Capital Improvement Projects Various Traffic /. transportation related projects. 58,338.4 3,172.3 $68,236.8 $ 4,820A / rivera/ mea su reA6yrform • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2010 — 2011 Agency: City of Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Prepared by: Sheila McGrath, Interim Administrative Analyst Phone #: (760) 770.0319 Date: August 28, 2006 Item No. Project Name / Limits Capital Projects Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 1. Public Works Department & Parks Maintenance City wide maintenance operations including parking, median maintenance and street 2,300.0 ------------------...----- 1,050.0 -------------------- Iig#►t-energy.----------- 2. Engineering & Planning Deparbnents Transportation and traffic related planning and development activities as well as highway design and related engineering activities. 2,200.9 352.7 3. Risk Management Traffic related claims management. 5,861.0 108.9 4. Traffic Signal Maintenance Maintenance of traffic signal system. 336.5 1365 5. Capital Improvement Projects Various Traffic / transportation related projects. 58.338.4 3,172.3 $68,236.8 $ 4,820.4 / rivera/ measuradyrform 10 AGENDA ITEM 9B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2007/11 Measure A Capital Improvement PI'an for Local Streets and Roads for the County of Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2007/11 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (Plan) for Local Streets and Roads for the county of Riverside. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must participate in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Plan for the county of Riverside was approved by the Commission at its July 12, 2006 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The County of Riverside has submitted a revised Plan to include projects that were incorporated into the County's FY 2006/07 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 29, 2006. Attachment: County of Riverside Revised FY 2007/11 Measure A Plan (available on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org) Agenda Item 9B AGENDA ITEM 9C • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Western Riverside Council of Governments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an allocation of Local Transportation Planning funds totaling $336,825 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and $617,513 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Code of Regulations, 99233.2, up to 3% of the annual revenues shall be allocated for the transportation planning and programming process. The Code further states that one-half of these funds shall be for planning work within the Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley areas, as determined by the Commission. On an annual basis the Commission, CVAG and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) develop transportation planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual budget that was approved in June 2006. Staff has reviewed the attached FY 2006/07 transportation planning and administrative work programs submitted by CVAG and WRCOG and find them consistent with the overall Commission transportation program and planning objectives. The funding requested is consistent with the approved FY 2006/07 Commission budget. Agenda Item 9C 12 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: 5336,825 CVAG $617,513 WRCOG Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 106-65-86205 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \life,u,i,j4,34 Date: 9/28/06 Attachments: 1) CVAG FY 2006/07 Program Objectives 2) WRCOG FY 2006/07 Program Objectives Agenda Item 9C 13 ATTACHMENT 1 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES - The Work Plan for 2006/07 is separated into eight main program areas; Transportation Department Operations .. Transportation Program Administration . Monitor Implementation of Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) . Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update . Other Transportation Planning . Operations Management and Administration This program area performs primarily .administrative functions which consist of - general transportation program administrative activities and various .transponation planning duties in support of the Transportation Department. (Funded from Measure A and TUMF) Project Management and Contract Administration . Financial Cash Flow Project Status Tracking. . Preparation and Monitoring Agreements Includes staff time to conduct project oversight (design; enviromnenta1, construction and close -dirt), preparation of reimbursement agreements for regional arterial_ projects,reviewand approval of project billings in accordance -with project scopeof work and participation in project development, team.rmeetings and associated staff reports. ..(Funded from Measure A, TUMF and TEA-21) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Programs. . State Highway Routes in the Coachella Valley . Congestion Management:Program/System (CMPICMS) . RCTC Technical AdvisoryCommittee State Highway Measure A; Discussions Includes staff time to, (i) support` the Riverside. Count ,C'ongestion Management Program through building .permit analysis of the one non. TIJIv F jurisdiction and analysisoftraffic patterns through the traffic count ._program, ;(Iij assist RCTC staff in the -selection of SB 821 bicycle andpedestrian projects for the Coachella Valley and western County areas, (iii) provide RCTC staff regional transportation project 14 information for the State Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTII'), and (iv) support the RCTC.Technical Advisory Committee. (Funded from CMAQ WAIF and State Highway Measure A4) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program . Regional Transportation Improvement Program/State Transportation Improve Program (RTIP/STIP) This area includes staff time in support of the State Transportation, .Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (R 11P), support in implementation and updating of the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization, Study(TPPS), coordination of updates to the Capital Improvement Plan (C1p), and monitoring and examining impacts.of implententing SB 45. TPPS" activities support the regional project construction program which includes staff time to develop an annual prioritized list of construction projects and required financial -resources. (Funded fron2 TEA-21 P"FMM, LTF and Measure A) Miscellaneous Programs ▪ GIS Information Services ▪ Maintain Transportation Model .Regional :Arterial Traffic Count.Program This` arcainvolVes suppart,to inultiple-programs with a focus_on key project areas: These. areas include. staff .time ,and project management to,. (r) . GIS Information Services, (ii)the regional transportation model (CVATS), (iii)"theregional;arterial traffic count program, and (iv) transportation legialation review and analysis: GIS' Information Services includes staff tine'to provide regional land use information to: CVAG jurisdictions, developers, SCAG and Caltrans. The Coachella ValleyArca Transportation "Study:(GVATS) regional trartslsorWoi rriodel i volves support to the curtenttrarispertatibr inoneifor foreeasting,pro3"ected transportatiotrsysterniieedg to the year2o3a. , (Funded from..Measure. .MF, CMAQ and ,Speett t Program Fnrids) Support CongestionMm _. anageent /Air Quality Pr"ogran s "SB 8a1 Program -" • Conformance withSW-requirements Invelyes s_ . _ ..,. ..... ,�, areas: ;�73ppil will 'focus -on, the SW ni program. Also includes implementation of State; Implementation .Plan ('SIP) confotmanceto CVAG regional "projects. Mo ded front TEA-t in Meant, re A and SB 821) 15 ATTACHMENT 2 RCOG Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Local Transportation Funds Program Objectives The Work Plan for FY 2006-07 is divided into 3 key programareas 1. Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) Overall Work Program (OWP) The SCAG OWP includes staff time to: coordinate the 11VRCOG sub -regional priorities/needs into the OWP; participate in the SCAG Technical Advisory Committees; work with our Policy Committee members to assist SCAG with the performance of specific transportation, air quality, planning and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program; work with SCAG and our partners regarding goods movement, legislation, population and employment issues; conduct outreach on air quality, transportation, and planning issues with the public, member jurisdictions and regional agencies. 2. Air Quality and Planning Programs Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects/programs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board Ca[trans Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) San. Diego; Association of Governments (SANDAG); Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) Air Quality: These programs include staff time to: support the Air Quality Task ,Force and the: Clean Cities Program; ,expand of the Coalition to include the Entire WRQ06 sub: region; continue the Glean _Cities Interactive Middle School Program;; participation in the National Clean 'Cities. Conference and DOE Peer Review sessions;; eantintie to develop emission reduction strategies; ;and specifically target diesel emission reductions; assist in the purchase of .alternative fuel vehicles; and'. development of infrastructure; continue to apply fOr and administer grants; review anti analyze state and federal legislation. attend and participate in regional air quality meetings; attend and participate in EPA and Air resources Board hearings: .and workshops and conferences, to provide •sub regional input; participate in outreach fia our jurisdictions regarding S.CAQMD ivle making; 17 Planning: These programs include: staff time to coordinate with the grant partners to analyze, develop strategies and implement the Ca!trans 1-15 Interregional Partnership, to continue the economic development working group; to complete Transit Oriented Development grant, and seek demonstration project funding; to prepare legislative reviews and analysis. 3. Regional transportation Programs Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Riverside and San Bernardino County Transportation Commissions San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) TUMF: This program includes staff time to administer the TUMF Prograrn which includes but is not limited to: program contract/agreement administration; public outreach/information; the Annual Report; signage program TUMF Zone TIP development and amendments; develop an investment policy and program for TUMF revenue; annual audit; ,preparation of annual adjustment for construction costs; maintain TUMF data base of fee collections and disbursements; work with developers on credit and reimbursement agreements; develop and maintain a GIS database to support the Program. Miscellaneous and GIS: This area includes staff time to and project management to: review the criteria cells in cooperation with the County of RiVerside and the RCA, 'participate with the local jurisdictions and regional partners GIS ceverage analysis; develop databases and provide analysis and mapping to supnerl RCTt's rail, STIP, TIJMF and transit programs and projects; provide land use, population and employment and other GIS information to local and regional agencies, Caltrans, and other state agencies; legislative review and analysiS. Riverside Trantportation CommissiOrt Pregrams; These programs include- staff time and project managentent ffi OSS.jqtgride in transportation planning and air apality _programs -to include: participation in the- RegiOnal TUMF projett evainations., TUMF credit •agrearaents, TtP revisions and other TUMF Program tasks as needed to assist. ROTC in the trnplerpeptatitin ,of the. Regional TUMF Program: partitipate in. evaluation tornrnittOea as requested Mid Cow* Parkway, RTP, Goods. Movement and other planning- related tasks: as determined in consultation with the RCTC EkeePtii/I4 Pireakir. 18 AGENDA • ITEM 9D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: IEOC Weekend Service Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC Metrolink Weekend Service have averaged 2,104 per weekend, which is up 460 (+28%) from a year ago. This expanded service provides both an extension to existing services for transit dependent riders and existing commuter passengers as well as a viable alternative to driving into Orange County, introducing entirely new users to the Metrolink system. tn a F- 0 28,000 24,000 20,000 16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 Cumulative Passenger Trips IEUC Weekend Service 0 . P.JA JAti Growth of the service reflects ongoing marketing efforts including print advertising, promotion of www.metrolinkweekends.com, direct mail, seat drops and daily radio spots. Furthermore, the Commission has partnered with parks and recreation departments in cities located near its Metrolink stations through a special ticket Agenda Item 9D 19 consignment program. This allows outlets to offer a discounted toundtrip ticket within their communities. These promotional efforts are the product of close cooperation between the Commission, OCTA and SANBAG. Early Voting Comes to Riverside County Metrolink Stations This fall is midterm election season. The Commission has joined with the Riverside County Registrar of Voters to bring the polls to Riverside County voters. Riverside County's first mobile voter education, outreach, and early voting venue will visit four of the county's five Metrolink stations beginning October 25, ahead of Election Day on November 2. Financed by a grant from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Registration, Outreach, Voting, and Education Resource, or ROVER, has just recently entered service. This 34-foot custom built self-contained vehicle is equipped with touch screen voting equipment, a full complement of voting materials, wheelchair lift and air conditioning. ROVER allows the Registrar of Voters to bring the County's popular "Early Voting" program to areas of the County not presently served by its three static mall locations. Date October 25 ROVER Station Schedule Time 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Polling Location Riverside Downtown Station October 31 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM La Sierra Station ROVER will be located in the parking lot of each applicable station. Campaigning or electioneering of any kind is prohibited within 100 feet of any polling area. Further information is available at www.voteinfo.net. UCR to Sponsor Free Metrolink Ticket Pilot Program The University of California Riverside (UCR) will sponsor a free Metrolink ticket pilot program during the fall quarter, commencing September 25. Students will be allotted 10-trip tickets corresponding to their class schedules and home station. Tickets will be distributed by UCR Transportation and Parking Services. This program will complement UCR's new U-PASS program. U-PASS is valid for travel on all RTA routes and provides students with what is essentially an all -access bus pass. UCR students get free rides simply by swiping their valid university Agenda Item 9D 20 • • ID cards through any RTA bus farebox. These programs are designed to help ease traffic congestion around campus, reduce parking problems and encourage ridesharing. Both the Metrolink ticket program and U-PASS and will be paid for by the University. Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line 5,400 5,000 a 4,600 F 4,200 c 3,800 3,400 3,000 2,600 Ca P°«oy5oo o°Y00�04. (so �a ooQ� oo�a�o6 PQ�oo�a�po Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of August averaged 4,507, which is up 29 (+1 %) from the month of July. Compared to one year prior, the Line averaged an overall daily increase of 190 passenger trips, nearly 4% more than a year ago, August 2005. 100 m 95 m 90 ro 85 ' 80 d a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line ur Track work o°j o`' o`' 0 0 o0 06 06 0o Ao p6 Pv� -4 4 t C c, 0� �o � �mc ��� �a eQ �a� �vo Month 06 PJ� August on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (-1 % from July) and 98 % outbound ( + 1 % from July). There were 10 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 9D 21 Signals/Track/MOW 8 /30% Dispatching 2 20% Mechanical 0 0% Operations 0 0% TOTAL - = In/and Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 4,800 4,600 a 4,400 F 4,200 v 4,000 as 3,800 3,600 3,400 oo�' o`' o`' `' A`O 0" 00 00 00 0`O 0" 00 V- co 0 �°, Ciz Sao F� Ca) V9 NO �Jc �J\ Qoe' Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line for the month of August averaged 4,598, an increase of 114 trips, 3% more than the month of July. The Line has increased by 817 daily trips or 22% from a year ago August 2005. 100 m 95 90 m 85 m 80 0- 75 70 Agenda Item 9D On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line ph p5 ph to Ah o6 d° o0 06 PJ� CO 0°� , \NoO°4 •ac ecib �a� PQ� a� Month A0 �J`ASo do o P 22 August on -time performance averaged 92% southbound (-2% from July) and 92% northbound (no change from July). There were 29 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August. The following are primary causes: 91 Line 31 % 34% 10% 25% Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 9 10 3 7 TOTAL 2,800 2,600 a 2,400 F 2,200 `0 2,000 4t 1,800 1,600 1,400 00 O' Oh FOB• 5e� Q�w �o Passenger Trips 91 Line ' oh o0 db o0 g) go ADO go do OeG lac Fad �a PQt a� ��� �J Jo' �` P Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of August averaged 2,424, an decrease of 59 trips or a 2% decrease from the month of July. The Line averaged an overall increase of 518 (+ 27 %) from a year ago August 2005. 100 d 95 90 m 85 m 80 a 75 70 Agenda Item 9D On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line O� g ,; Ay OD OrO OrO 06 Oro 6 0 6 do PJA Cy( C f �°, 46 Jam Qe � PQs 4•aAA �s) . �J�A le° 23 Month August on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (-2% from July) and 95% outbound (no change from July). There were 13 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 9D Signals/Track/MOW 5 38% Dispatching 6 46% Mechanical 0 0% Operations 2 16 % TOTAL 24 AGENDA ITEM 9E RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION :„.,.._. I. DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Claudia Chase, Property Administrator Min Saysay, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Maintenance of Elevators at Metrolink Stations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-25-042-00 with Amtech Elevator Services for elevator maintenance services to amend the term and rates of the agreement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2001, the Commission entered into an agreement with Oliver & Williams to provide maintenance services for the elevators at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. In January 2002, the Commission amended the maintenance agreement to include the La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations. In 2004, Oliver & Williams merged with Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech). In November 2004, the maintenance agreement was amended to include the North Main Corona Metrolink Station. Amtech has been responsive to emergency repairs and has adequately maintained the elevators with its knowledge and experience of the equipment. Amtech currently has active contracts at the Riverside Downtown and North Main Corona Stations. Agreement No. 07-25-042-00 with Amtech will consolidate the three existing agreements so that all of the stations will have identical schedules, costs and conditions. Staff is satisfied with the performance of Amtech Elevator Services and recommends authorization of a three-year agreement with two one-year options to extend the agreement. The proposed cost is 519,092, annually. Agenda Item 9E 25 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $19,092 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 103-25-73301 P4001, 03,04,06 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date:. 9/28/06 Agenda Item 9E 26 AGENDA ITEM 9F • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Allocation of Local Transportation Funds for Fiscal Year 2005/06 City of Banning Transit Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate $78,695 of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to the city of Banning's transit services to cover FY 2005/06 operating costs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On an annual basis, staff requests an allocation of LTF funds based on approved Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), which identify both the operating and capital costs required to support transit services in Riverside County. For FY 2005/06, the city of Banning was approved to receive an allocation of $794,122 in LTF funds. The allocation was based on an estimated carry -forward balance of $205,522; unfortunately, the actual carry -forward amount was less than the original estimate. As a result, staff is requesting an additional allocation of $78,695 to fully fund the city of Banning's transit services for FY 2005/06. There is adequate LTF funds available in the Western Riverside County apportionment area to cover the additional funding. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $78,695 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ ;n javz„, Date: 9/27/06 Agenda Item 9F 27 • AGENDA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request from Care Connexxus, Inc. and Peppermint Ridge for Measure A Specialized Transit Funds as Capital Match for the Section 5310 Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $10,667 to Care Connexxus, Inc. and $18,367 to Peppermint Ridge in Measure A Specialized Transit funds to provide the required capital match for the Section 5310 program; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-036-00 with Care Connexxus for $10,667 and Agreement No. 07-26-043-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $18,367 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County;. and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Both Care Connexxus, Inc. and Peppermint Ridge were recently notified by Ca[trans that their agencies are approved to receive funding under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 program for the following capital equipment: Care Connexxus, Inc. $ 93,000 — Accessible bus Riverside, California Peppermint Ridge Corona, California Agenda Item 9G $160,132 — Modified van, two medium buses and miscellaneous vehicle maintenance equipment 28 The Section 5310 program provides funding for 88.53% of the cost of capital projects. Both Care Connexxus, Inc. and Peppermint Ridge are requesting that the required 11.47% match ($10,667 and $18,367 respectively) be funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County. These funds are specifically set aside, on an annual basis, to provide the local capital match to operators located in Western Riverside County participating in the Section 5310 program. Care Connexxus, Inc., located in Riverside, California, provides specialized transportation services for participants in its adult day-care programs. The agency specializes in the care of the frail elderly with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders as well as providing support for their caregivers. Although staff from Care Connexxus coordinates its transportation services with public transit agencies, many of its clients have trouble riding mass transportation. Care Connexxus receives Measure A Specialized Transit funds to operate its services as well as the use of the agency's general funds. Peppermint Ridge, located in Corona, California, provides specialized transportation services for participants in its program who do not have the required mental capacity to navigate public transit on their own. Peppermint Ridge provides the required operating and maintenance funds to operate this service through its general fund budget. If the requests for Measure A funding are approved, the local match will be placed on deposit directly with Ca!trans. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $29,034 Source of Funds: Measure A Specialized Transit Funding: Western Riverside Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 225-26-86103 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \I A,14,x7 Date: 9/25/06 Agenda Item 9G 29 AGENDA ITEM 9H • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside. County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 07-72-046-00 with Jacobs Civil Inc. for the Preparation of a Project Report/Environmental Document for the Cajalco Road/1-15 Interchange STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-046-00 with Jacobs Civil Inc. (Jacobs) for the preparation of a project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the Cajalco Road/1-15 interchange for a not to exceed amount of $750,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve adjustments to the FY 2006/07 budget for a $750,000 increase in revenues and a $750,000 increase in expenditures. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its November 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved the latest amendment to the Jacobs contract to provide the project report/environmental document (PR/ED) for the Mid County Parkway project. This project is a 32-mile corridor that is aligned east -west and connects the cities of San Jacinto, Perris and Corona as it passes through County unincorporated areas. The western terminus is at the location of the Cajalco Road interchange on 1-15 in the city of Corona (City). The City is interested in expediting the improvement of the Cajalco Road/1-15 interchange because of current and projected congestion levels at this location. The City was successful in securing $6.8 million in SAFETEA-LU High Priority Project Roadway federal demonstration funds for the construction of this new interchange. The City has also programmed local funds, both developer fees and traffic uniform mitigation fees, for this project. Agenda Item 9H 30 Early reconstruction of this interchange must be completed in a fashion that would not preclude the connection, or increase the cost, of constructing the Mid County Parkway project at a future date. Since the Commission has Jacobs performing the PR/ED for the Mid County Parkway project that also includes the planned replacement of the subject interchange, it makes sense from both an economical and management perspective to have Jacobs perform the work, under Commission direction, using material that Jacobs has already collected and prepared. In order to allow the interchange improvement to move forward separate from the Mid County Parkway project, a specific PR/ED for the interchange must be prepared. The City has agreed to bear the entire cost of completing the additional work as outlined in Agreement No. 07-72-030-00 that was approved by the Commission on September 14, 2006. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY06/07 Amount: $750,000 Source of Funds: Local Reimbursements Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 210-72-41203 P2309 210-72-81101 P2309 $750,000 (Revenues) $750,000 (Expenditures) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,4,1 Date: 10/03/06 Attachments: 1) Project Scope of Work 2) Project Cost Spreadsheets 3) Proposed Project Schedule Agenda Item 9H • 31 ATTACHMENT 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES / MANHOUR FEE ESTIMATE CAJALCO / 1-15 INTERCHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PROJECT REPORT September 22, 2006. Prepared for: Prepared by: 32 ATTACHMENT 1 CAJALCO / 1-15 INTERCHANGE SCOPE OF SERVICES / MANHOUR FEE ESTIMATE September 22, 2006 33 • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 1 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT CAJALCO / 1-15 INTERCHANGE —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PROJECT REPORT 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Project Management This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT) leadership, progress monitoring, and maintenance of project files from October 1, 2006 through March 1, 2008. Jacobs Civil Engineering (Jacobs) will perform, supervise, coordinate, monitor, and review the Project Report and Environmental Document, assumed to be a Categorical Exclusion for conformance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans), and local agency standards, policies, and procedures. Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project. This task will also include coordination and preparation of several documents anticipated to be required by Ca!trans based on the Final Project Report and Environmental Document. This task also incorporates the management and project integration required for each of the subconsultants on this project. The consultant will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project. The job -specific QA/QC plan used will be updated for the project, which includes the type and timing of checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures. These procedures apply to all team members and will be regularly audited by our designated QA/QC manager to ensure compliance. All documents and papers for external use will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. A technical editor will be used for all external documents. Jacobs will complete the QA/QC plan no later than one month after Notice to Proceed. The purpose of the document is to verify that: • All environmental and design attributes meet established industry or agency standards and comply with all applicable jurisdictional codes and requirements; • Multidisciplinary data acquisition and design efforts are coordinated and addressed; and 35 • Design is sufficiently complete to produce a reliable cost estimate for the purposes of project funding and supporting the assessments in the Categorical Exclusion. 1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate project milestones in the critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded for the team. The schedule will be updated bimonthly or more frequently as required, and a variance analysis will be provided in our monthly report. Primavera Scheduling Software, tied into the Jacobs Accounting System, will be used for this task. Jacobs will provide the Project Controls for this project to ensure proper financial controls to the project. Earned value will be used along with schedule updates to maintain project budget and schedule. 1.3 Project Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend a number of meetings as specified below: Project Development Team (PDT) The PDT and Jacobs will meet monthly. These progress meetings will be used to coordinate the work effort and resolve problems and will be conducted by the Consultant. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others, including Ca!trans, the City of Corona and others as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all project team members as appropriate. The meetings will also review the following: 1. Activities completed since the last meeting 2. Problems encountered 3. Anticipated strategic problems and possible solutions 4. Information or items required from other cities or the agencies 5. Schedule "look -ahead" discussion Trend Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the bi-monthly "Trend" meetings to discuss strategic technical issues, scope of services, schedule, cost, and other issues as required for coordination. 36 Caltrans Monthly Workshop Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend monthly Caltrans workshop meetings to review and resolve engineering issues, share information, seek input, provide interim reviews of data, etc. Internal Team Meetings The Jacobs Team will run and attend monthly internal team meetings to develop, discuss, review, and implement task assignments and coordinate tasks. Assumption: This scope of services covers the period of October 1, 2006 through March 1, 2008. 37 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO.2 — SURVEY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) CAJALCO ! 1-15 INTERCHANGE —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PROJECT REPORT 2.0 SURVEY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) 2.1 Survey and Mapping 2.1.1 Topography and Aerial Photography The consultant will use existing surveying and mapping from the Mid County. Parkway project. All work will be completed in conformance with Ca!trans standards and specifications including English units. The Mid County Parkway project has ortho-rectified mapping with ground control. The Mid County Parkway project mapping will have to be converted from Metric to English units. 2.2 Not Applicable 2.3 Early ROW Studies The following tasks will be performed: • Perform a field inspection of the alternative. Ascertain number of parcels, types of improvements, and possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.). Estimate family sizes on residential relocations. • Using city surveys, courthouse records, and real estate listings, compile information on neighborhood characteristics, price ranges for land and improvements, housing available, minority percentages, etc. _ • Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment. • Prepare a conceptual relocation study. • Identify potential problem areas. • Prepare a land use map that identifies land usage along each alignment. The parcel use categories shall utilize appropriate categories. Products: Data for Draft Relocation Impact Report and ROW Data Sheets 38 2.4 Prepare Draft Relocation Impact Report The Consultant will prepare the report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and the "Uniform Act." This task includes a site visit and research in preparation of the report; no interviews or surveys of the potential displacees will be conducted at the draft stage. The report will include the number and type of: • Residential displacements • Multifamily displacements • Business/nonprofit displacements • Farms/agriculture displacements The report will discuss the potential for last resort housing and the current and anticipated availability of relocation resources. The report will include a discussion of any relocation problems specific to this project and the altematives, along with suggested solutions/mitigation solutions to those problems. The report will also include potential sequencing or foreseeable relocation difficulties of unusual or difficult displacees. This report will use existing available information in the market including but not limited to professional services, real estate brokers, publications, studies, and government resources. Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one Draft Relocation Impact Report and one Final Relocation Impact Report. Product: Draft Relocation Impact Report and Final Relocation Impact Report for each alternative (10 copies of each report). 2.5 Prepare ROW Data Sheets The Consultant shall complete the following: Prepare right-of-way data sheets as required by Caltrans. Number of data sheet parcels estimated: 50 for the alignment selection. Some work has already been performed under the Mid County Parkway project and will be used in this project. This analysis will identify the property acquisitions and relocations required for each of the final alternatives based on the ROW requirement map prepared previously. 39 • Typically, depending on the alternative, property may be required for highway widening, interchanges, fixed guideways, stations, parking, maintenance facilities, and/or ancillary structures. The work tasks will include the following: • Perform a field inspection of each alternative. Ascertain number of parcels, types of improvements, and possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.). Estimate family sizes on residential relocations. • Using city surveys, courthouse records, and real estate listings, compile information on neighborhood characteristics, price ranges for land and improvements, housing available, minority percentages, etc. • Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment. • Prepare a conceptual relocation study. • Identify potential problem areas. • Prepare a property ownership map based on railroad right-of-way maps and on tax records that identify ownership for each alignment. • Prepare a land use map that identifies land usage along each alignment. The parcel use categories shall utilize appropriate categories, including: o Land in public ownership: specific use and responsible agency/jurisdiction o Commercial: retail, wholesale, industrial, other commercial o Residential: single-family or multifamily o Vacant o Mixed uses o Other (specific) The Consultant shall complete the following: 1. Review the impact of each proposed alignment on existing and known future land uses. 2. Prepare a ROW report that summarizes the findings and includes: (1) a cost estimate; (2) a relocation evaluation for each alignment; (3) identified problem areas; (4) ownership map; and (5) a land use map (6) include costs provided by engineers from Task 6.3.3 covering utility relocation estimate costs. 3. Prepare right-of-way data sheets as required by Caltrans. Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one set of Right - of -Way Data Sheets and one Final updated Right -of -Way Data Sheet for the alternative. 40 Product: ROW Data Sheets (estimated total parcels: 50) per Caltrans standards for inclusion in the Project Report. 2.6 Property Acquisition and Displacement — Hardship and Protection (Right of Way) The work task will include advance purchases for hardship and/or protection parcels. Advance acquisition on adopted roadway routes (except for other compelling circumstances) is made prior to freeway agreement or in advance of the year in which it is programmed. Advance acquisition may include the voluntary gift or a donation of property. Product: Parcels acquired for hardship and protection 41 • • SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL CAJALCO / 1-15 INTERCHANGE —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PR 3.0 INTRODUCTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with the City of Corona (City) is seeking to complete the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of the Cajalco Road/1-15 Interchange Improvement project. The proposed project is an operational improvement to close a gap between four and six lane sections of Cajalco Road on either side of the freeway. Specifically the project proposes to widen Cajalco from two to four lanes from Bedford Canyon Road east to the existing six lanes and to widen the 1-15 ramps one to two lanes. The proposed project is in the 2004 RTIP (Project ID # RIV01020). The project would involve improvements to a federal facility (1-15), and it is anticipated that federal funds may be used for construction. Therefore, the project will need to be environmentally cleared under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Due to the limited nature of the proposed improvement, preparation of a Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE/CE) appears to be the appropriate environmental document for compliance with CEQA and NEPA. 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Based on our understanding of the project, we propose the work program outlined below. The level of effort is based on a Categorical Exemption (CE) as the CEQA document and a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for NEPA clearance, along with supporting technical studies. It is anticipated that the CEQA environmental documentation necessary for the proposed project will be a CE under Class I (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, [cj), which allows modifications to existing roadways if there is no increase or a negligible increase in capacity. It is anticipated that the NEPA environmental documentation would be a Categorical Exclusion_(CE) if no significant environmental impacts are determined to result from the proposed project. If the technical studies identify any impacts requiring mitigation beyond standard construction provisions that result in the need for higher -level CEQA and NEPA environmental documents, (e.g., an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment [IS/EAj, an optional task budget has been provided. 42 3.1.1 Technical Studies In accordance with Caltrans and FHWA current procedures and guidelines, the consultant will prepare the required technical reports for the project in support of the CE/CE. The level of effort assumes two rounds of Caltrans review with the first round for major comments and the second round for minor cleanup (i.e., no substantial new work required). This scope and budget are based on evaluation of one Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative. To the greatest extent feasible, the technical studies will utilize data collected for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. Based upon the proposed project improvements, technical studies for air quality, biology, cultural resources, and hazardous waste are proposed. An optional task for a noise study is also provided, should this be required by Caltrans. 3.1.1.1 Air Quality Analysis The consultant will prepare an Air Quality Assessment for the project in accordance with the Caltrans' Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide (CO) Protocol, the EPA's fugitive dust conformity rule, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook air quality guidelines. Baseline and project setting meteorological and air quality data in the South Coast Air Basin area developed through the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the SCAQMD will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality. Air quality data from the nearest air quality monitoring stations published for the past three years will be included to help highlight existing air quality local to the proposed project site. Other sources such as regulatory documents, professional publications, and the consultant experience in the project area will supplement background information. A summary of current air quality management efforts that may be related to the proposed project will be provided. Construction would occur during implementation of the proposed project. Air quality impacts from demolition, grading, and construction sources will be analyzed based on the equipment used, length of time for a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), equipment emission factors approved by the EPA (AP-42 Handbooks), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. Exhaust and dust emissions from worker commutes and equipment travel will be calculated based on available information regarding these activities. Fugitive dust emissions would result from wind erosion of exposed soil and soil storage piles, grading operations, and vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads. Emissions associated with asphalt paving will be calculated when specific data are available. Emission factors included in the AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook or the ARB's URBEMIS 2002 model will be used for construction dust emission estimates. These 43 • emissions will be calculated based on construction information available and provided to the environmental team by the engineering team. Traffic in the project area is expected to increase due to area growth with population expansion. There is also a possibility that some traffic currently utilizing other routes would be attracted to the improved interchange. Carbon monoxide and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) hot -spot analyses will be conducted based on the peak traffic hour along this road, and turn volumes projected at key affected intersections in the project vicinity that would be affected by the project. The need for any air quality mitigation measures will be identified in the impact analysis. 3.1.1.2 Biological Resources Technical Reports (NES) The consultant will prepare a Natural Environment Study Minimal Impact (NES/MI) document pursuant to Ca!trans CEQA requirements and suitable for review by FHWA pursuant to NEPA requirements. The following tasks will be performed during the preparation of the NES/MI: An updated literature review will be conducted to identify sensitive species known or report from the project area. The literature review will include a: 1) special interest species lists from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS); 2) database searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Electronic Inventory of the CNPS; 3) the most recent Federal Register listing package and critical habitat determination for each federally listed Endangered or Threatened species potentially occurring within the project site; 4) the CDFG Annual Report on the status of California's listed Threatened and Endangered plants and animals; and 5) list of other biological studies conducted in the vicinity of the project site; and Vegetation will be mapped to identify and describe the extent and distribution of various vegetation types on the project site, including any special status vegetation types. During the vegetation mapping effort, an assessment will be made of the potential for special interest plant species to be present. A description of the existing quality and species composition of the vegetation types will be compiled based upon recent biological field studies. Wildlife and plant data collected from recent MCP biological studies within the project boundary will be evaluated and used to prepare the NES. Because the MCP field surveys were completed in the past two years, no additional field work is proposed. A draft Natural Environment Study (NES) will be developed for the project based on the results of the recent MCP biological surveys and analysis. The report will describe: (a) the methodology used to conduct the biological surveys, (b) a detailed 44 description of the existing vegetation types and associated wildlife resources on the project site, and (c) potential impacts from project development. Recommended mitigation measures will be described in a cover letter accompanying the report at the time it is submitted to Caltrans. The NES will also identify any regulatory permits that may be required for project approval and construction (i.e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit, California Department of Fish and Game 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement, Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Certification, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Section 7 Consultation). The NES will be consistent with Caltrans standards. A draft version of the NES will be submitted to the City of Corona and Caltrans for review and comment. Upon receipt of comments (including up to two (2) revisions), a final NES will be prepared. The consultant will review all comments on the Draft NES. Areas where the NES requires up to two (2) revisions or additional analysis will be identified. Information or clarification requests identified in the comments on the Draft NES will be addressed in the revised document. Concurrent with the revised document, The consultant will prepare a separate letter to respond to comments on the Draft NES. 3.1.1.3 Cultural Resources Technical Reports (HPSR/ASR/HRER) All cultural resource efforts will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Compliance will be accomplished by conducting all studies according to the Caltrans Environmental Handbook Volume 11, Cultural Resources and the Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -aid Highway Program in California. The scope of this proposal assumes: • No new field survey or records search will be required. The field survey and records search conducted for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) will be sufficient; • Negative results (no archaeological resources or buildings/structures more than 45 years in age will be identified within or adjacent to the project APE); • Two rounds of District 8 comments will be addressed in the Caltrans review cycle; • Native American consultation can be completed with one initial contact, up to two follow up telephone or e-mail communications with each tribe or individual, and one response to each tribe or individual's comments prior to the submission of the draft HPSR to Caltrans. 45 • • With the exception of Native American consultation, the consultant will not initiate project tasks until a draft APE suitable for submittal to Caltrans has been prepared; and • Cultural resource reports will be completed 60 days after Caltrans approval of the APE map. Caltrans APE Map. The consultant will coordinate the delineation of the project Study Area or Area of Potential Effects (APE) map with Caltrans and RCTC. The consultant will prepare the APE map based upon the project right-of-way and limits of disturbance as defined by the engineering team. Research. The consultant has recently conducted a cultural resources records search of the projects direct APE as part of the MCP project at the Easter Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside. The EIC is the State -designated repository for records concerning cultural resources in Riverside County. The records search will provide information on known cultural resources and on previous cultural resources investigations within a one -mile radius of the project. Data sources that will be consulted at the EIC include archaeological site and artifact records, historic maps, reports from previous studies, and the State's Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) for Riverside County, which contains listings for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) properties. The consultant will not conduct a new records search. The consultant also conducted a title search at the County Assessor's Office for the parcels within both the direct APE and the indirect APE to determine build dates for any structures. If any buildings/structures 45 years and older are identified within the APE, additional tasks and a budget modification will be required. Field Survey. The consultant completed a systematic field survey of both the direct and indirect APE as part of the MCP project. The ground surface was visually examined by an archaeologist for evidence of prehistoric (Native American) or historic (non -Native American) archaeological materials and other potential historic resources (e.g., structures, bridges, railroads, mines, or canals). There are no cultural resources within the proposed APE. Reports. In compliance with Caltrans, FHWA, and the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) requirements, the consultant will prepare a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). THE CONSULTANT will prepare these reports according to updated Caltrans specifications and the Programmatic Agreement. The reports will describe: 1) the 46 results of Native American Consultation; 2) research and field methods used in identifying known archaeological resources; 3) the archaeological and historic resources identified in the project vicinity; and 4) the potential of the project .to adversely impact any archaeological or historic resources. THE CONSULTANT will submit ten (10) each the draft and final copies of all reports for the project. A Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) will not be prepared, since the MCP studies did not identify any historic resources in the Cajalco Road/I-15 project area. Native American Coordination/Consultation. The consultant will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and request a review of their Sacred Lands File for identification of any Native American cultural resources within the project and to identify any tribal representatives and/or individuals that may have knowledge of sacred sites or concerns about the project. The consultant will submit the NAHC list of tribes and individuals to the Caltrans District 8 Native American coordinator for additional input. With Caltrans approval, the consultant will contact up to 15 Native American groups and individuals. The consultant will contact each tribe via certified mail. After 21 days, the consultant will follow up via telephone or e-mail with those groups or individuals that have not commented. The consultant will attempt to contact each group or individual up to 2 times. The consultant will prepare a matrix summarizing consultation activities that will be attached to the project HPSR. 3.1.1.4 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) The consultant will prepare an ISA in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1597-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental. Site Assessment Process. The following tasks performed for the MCP project will provide the data to be used in this evaluation: • The consultant conducted an agency records database search to identify hazardous waste sites located within and in the vicinity of the study area and classified as hazardous waste under State law. The records search identified business types located within and in the vicinity of the study area that store, transfer,or utilize large quantities of hazardous materials. This information was obtained from records maintained by federal, State and local agencies, through database service. • Historic land use information for the study area will be reviewed to determine whether previous uses in the project area may have resulted in hazardous waste contamination. This information may include historic aerial photographs, historic USGS maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Oil and Gas maps, groundwater depth/flow data, City directories, County Assessor's data, and building permits: • The consultant conducted a visual survey of the study area via public right-of- way to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination_ 47 • • If hazardous waste sites are identified within the study area (via governmental records and/or the visual survey), the consultant will review available public records at the appropriate oversight agency to determine the potential impact to the project. Based on the data collected for the MCP project the consultant will prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations based on the site survey and historical records review. 3.1.1.5 Noise Impact Analysis Should Caltrans require a noise study, the consultant will prepare a Noise Impact Analysis that assesses the project's potential effects on existing and future noise conditions. The consultant will review applicable State (Caltrans), City, and County noise and land use compatibility criteria for the project area. Noise standards regulating noise impacts including Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and standards included in the City and County Noise Ordinances will be discussed for land uses adjacent to the project. The areas with potential future noise impacts will be identified using land use information, aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. A discussion of any existing sensitive uses in the project vicinity will be included. Existing roadway traffic noise will be calculated as baseline conditions, using traffic data included in the traffic study for the proposed project. A survey of existing ambient noise levels will be conducted to establish the character of the noise environment at any sensitive receptor locations along Interstate 15 (I- 15) in the project area. Short-term noise measurements (15 minute) will be made at up 8 locations. Observations of noise sources and other noise correlates will be noted during each measurement period. Construction would occur during implementation of the proposed project. Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed based on the equipment expected to be used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percent of time in use. EPA recommended noise emission levels will be used for the construction equipment. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax), and the frequency of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations. Analysis requirements will be based on the sensitivity of the area and the Noise Ordinance specifications of the Cities and County. The most recent version of the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), the Sound32 replacement, will be used to evaluate the traffic noise levels associated with the Existing, Future No Build, and Build Alternatives. Traffic parameters necessary for the model input will be obtained from the traffic study prepared for this project. 48 Noise abatement measures designed to reduce short- and long-term impacts to acceptable noise levels in the vicinity of the project site will be determined where necessary. Feasibility of the noise abatement measure will be evaluated. A preliminary reasonableness analysis will also be provided. 3.1.2 Categorical Exemption (CE)/Categorical Exclusion (CE) or Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Categorical Exclusion (CE) Following approval of the technical studies, the consultant will prepare a Draft CE/CE pursuant to Caltrans' requirements as posted on their Standard Environmental Reference (SER) website. The Draft CE/CE will be submitted to the City, RCTC and Caltrans for review. The consultant will revise the CE/CE to address any comments, and the CE/CE will be submitted to Caltrans for signature. Following Caltrans approval and signature of the CE/CE, the consultant will file the NOE with the County Clerk's office and the. State Office of Planning and Research. After the NOE is posted at the County Clerk's Office for a period of 30 days, it will be returned to the consultant and will become part of the legal record for the project. In the event the project does not meet the criteria for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA, an optional task is provided as follows for preparation of an IS/MND. Following approval of the technical studies, the consultant will prepare a Draft IS/MND pursuant to Caltrans' requirements as posted on their SER. An - Administrative Draft IS/MND will be submitted to the City, RCTC and Caltrans for review. The consultant will revise the IS/MND to address any comments and will submit a Second Administrative Draft IS/MND for review. The consultant will then revise the IS/MND to address any additional comments and submit the Draft IS/MNDS along with a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration to Caltrans for approval to circulate for public review. Once Caltrans approves the Draft IS/MND for public review, the consultant shall circulate up to 50 copies of the Draft IS/MND (which includes 14 copies to the State Clearinghouse) for public review. The consultant shall prepare the distributions list for the draft IS/MND in cooperation with the City, RCTC, and Caltrans. Following public review of the Draft IS/MND, the consultant shall prepare draft response to comments and submit them for review to the City, RCTC and Caltrans. Following review of the draft responses to comments, the consultant will prepare a Draft Final IS/MDN for review by the City, RCTC and Caltrans. Following the receipt of any comments, the consultant will prepare and submit a Final IS/MND to Caltrans for approval. Within five days of Caltrans' approval of the MND, the consultant will prepare and file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk's office and the State Office of Planning and Research. The consultant will be responsible for any required filing fees; filing of the NOD will complete the CEQA process. Following completions of the CEQA process, a Categorical Exclusion form for NEPA will be prepared and submitted to Caltrans for approval. 49 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO.4 — ENGINEERING CAJALCO / 1-15 INTERCHANGE —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PROJECT REPORT 4.0 ENGINEERING 4.1 Preliminary Engineering Based on the current five build alternatives from MCP which will use the same service interchange at Cajalco / 1-15, the Consultant will further refine the horizontal and vertical alignments to minimize environmental and right of way impacts and reduce construction costs. A Caltrans Value Analysis process will be required and will be conducted on the current build alternative for Cajalco / 1-15. A number of design variations may be developed in the Value Analysis process. The Consultant team will have to work with Caltrans during this process to ensure that the design variations do not preclude any other projects currently under planning including the Mid County Parkway and Corridor B. The consultant will prepare a preliminary alignment plan for the build alternative in English units at 1:200 scale for agencies' review. The MCP design will be utilized as a base and the current terrain data will be converted to English units. Once the alignment plan is reviewed and accepted by RCTC, the City of Corona, FHWA and Caltrans, it is important that the alignment for the alternative be frozen at this stage. Based on the selected alignment, the consultant will assess the area of impact for the environmental processing and documentation, the right-of-way requirements, and utility conflicts. 4.1.1 Geometric Base Map Based on the approved alignment plans, the consultant will prepare a geometric base map which consists of layout, profiles, and typical sections for the build alternative in English units at 1:100 scale. The geometric base map will be prepared to meet 2035 traffic demand as the ultimate buildout condition including number of lanes on the 1-15 mainline and the interchange configuration. These preliminary plans will be developed based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual (revision for U.S. Customary Units), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, and other applicable county and cities design standards. Any nonstandard design features will be identified and discussed at the PDT meetings to assess options for eliminating the nonstandard features or obtain concurrence for requesting design exceptions. All proposed 50 nonstandard features will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets for Caltrans review and approval. Products: • Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1:100 Scale 4.2 Value Analysis A formal Value Analysis (VA) will be required in accordance with FHWA policies; that is, any project costing in excess of $25 million shall be subject to a formal VA study. The VA will look at the service interchange, with the assumption that the service interchange will function with or without the Mid County Parkway alignment, and minimize throw away when the Mid County Parkway is constructed. Subsequent to this study and following delivery of the pertinent technical information required for a VA study, the formal study will be scheduled utilizing Caltrans on -call VA study facilitators. These facilitators from VMS Inc. will be under subconsultant agreement to the Consultant. This effort is estimated to take three days to complete, not including the report and follow-up responses to the study. It is anticipated that the resulting VA will satisfy the requirements of Caltrans and FHWA for this project. The formal VA study will consist of a team of reviewers who have not participated in the project yet are familiar with the requirements of the design for the project: The members of the VA study team will be determined by RCTC and Caltrans. The Consultant will provide technical support and background material as needed. To initiate the process, the Consultant shall prepare a document for distribution to the VA team consisting of the following: • Preliminary alignment plans • Traffic study information with peak hour and directional movements for the interchange location • Utility mapping • Right -of -Way information The VA team will review this information with the project team to discuss options for improving the quality of the project, resolve conflicts with stakeholders on the project, provide alternative solutions to difficult transportation issues, and identify cost -saving altematives to the project. The Consultant shall prepare responses to the comments received from the VA Studies and deliver a report identifying those if any of the recommendations that 51 • should be implemented or should be further evaluated for consideration. Discussion for the build alternative solutions offered is required to completely address each option. At the conclusion of the VA study, the Consultant shall identify the final geometry for the project alternative and include as appropriate in the Project Report. Products: Formal VA Study Reports 4.3 Engineering Technical Studies/Reports Engineering technical studies/reports will be prepared for the build alternative based on the geometric base map to address the potential engineering issues and support the Project Report (PR). Draft reports will be prepared for review by Caltrans, the County, City of Corona, and other regulatory agencies where applicable. Final reports will be included in the PR. 4.3.1 Utilities The Consultant shall locate major utility features using collected utility data such as utility company as -built plans and Caltrans utility maps. Once the utility information is plotted on the preliminary layout plans, the plans will be sent to the utility companies to verify the existing utility locations. With all the utility locations confirmed, the Consultant will contact all affected utility companies to identify the utility conflicts. During this phase, the Consultant will coordinate with the utility companies for potential relocation and to determine role and responsibility in the next phases. Product: Utility Maps, Utility Cost Estimates 4.3.2 Right -of -Way Engineering Support Based on the geometric base map developed in Task 4.1 Preliminary Engineering for the alternative a thorough review of the existing right-of-way maps, parcel maps, tract maps, records of survey and assessor's maps, the consultant will prepare right- of-way requirement drawings that clearly delineate the proposed right of way lines and the additional rights of way that would be. required. The right of way requirements will include full and partial acquisitions, temporary construction easements and permanent easements. In addition, we will obtain the known future development information along the proposed alignments, and include them in the right of way base map. Once the Right of Way Requirement Plans are completed, the plans will be used to evaluate right of way impact and prepare cost estimates for the build alternative. The appropriate data will be assembled and reported in Right -of -Way Data Sheet format as defined in Exhibit 01-01-01 of Caltrans Project Development Manual. 52 RPTC; Products: Right -of -Way Requirement Plans at 1:100 Scale 4.3.3 Cost Estimates The Consultant will prepare preliminary construction cost estimates for the build alternative. The estimates will follow the format defined in the Ca!trans Project Development Procedures Manual and will address the major cost items such as roadway, structures, retaining walls, maintenance of traffic, potential environmental mitigation, utility relocation and right-of-way (per ROW Data Sheets). Costs will be based on accepted planning estimate unit prices. Products: Cost Estimate for the build alternative 4.3.4 Structures Advance Planning Studies The Structures Advance Planning Studies (APS) will be prepared in accordance with the Ca!trans practice for such studies and will depict the most feasible bridge alternative and layout for the proposed crossings. The APS will include a cost estimate for the bridge structure. Multiple alternatives for the bridge type are not required for the APS. Products: Structures APS Reports (General Plan and APS Checklists) 4.3.5 Drainage Report The Consultant shall prepare a conceptual drainage report for the project. The report shall include the identification of the primary watercourses required to be conveyed through the project. The identification of the design discharge for each of these watercourses shall be provided for by consulting with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and retrieving their current ultimate design discharge for these facilities. A separate hydrology study for these watercourses is not a part of this scope of services. Once the design discharges have been identified, the Consultant shall prepare a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the bridge and/or culvert crossings as may be proposed by the Consultant for the project. This analysis shall be prepared incorporating acceptable engineering software (HEC-RAS, WSPG, etc.) to demonstrate the appropriate conveyance facility for the various crossings. The hydraulic analysis shall be complete enough to identify those impacts to the existing floodplain as may be a result of the proposed project crossing.. Analysis excludes determination of channel stability, scour and erosion analysis for each stream crossing. As much as possible, the existing MCP project will provide the basis of the drainage report. On -site drainage facilities for the corridor shall be evaluated and identified in a qualitative manner. Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is not required for this phase of the work. For determining the extent of on -site drainage improvements, the Consultant shall identify sump locations (if any) and the appropriate conveyance 53 e facility for the sumps. The Consultant shall identify discharge locations for the on -site drainage features, incorporating them into the applicable best management practices (BMP) facilities to design along with this project. Rough estimates of design discharges will be developed on gross acreage determination (i.e., total area tributary to a concentration point multiplied by an applicable yield factor [cfs per acre)). These values will be used to provide preliminary sizing of the drainage system within the project site. Products: Drainage Report 4.3.6 Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) The Storm Water Data Report for Project Report (PR) level will be prepared in accordance with the criteria and requirements set forth by Caltrans for such a document. Current guidelines for the preparation of the SWDR are contained within Appendix E of the Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide. A separate on -site conceptual drainage report shall be prepared as supplemental information for Caltrans for review and approval of the SWDR. The extent of the work involved in this task will require review of the existing Regional Water Quality Control Board agreements with the local jurisdictions; review of Caltrans BMP requirements; identification of expected pollutants; and identification of the necessary BMP sites within the project to treat runoff before discharging into existing watercourses. The draft and final SWDR is based on the one Build Alternative. Product: Storm Water Data Report (PR Level) 4.3.7 Conceptual Stage Construction & Traffic Management Plan (TMP) The Consultant shall develop a construction staging concept for the build alternative. The concept will illustrate with schematic drawings to note the major features and stages of construction. At this stage we are concerned with identifying construction issues that influence the viability of the build alternative. For example, it is anticipated that the need for such a plan for the interchanges will be required to demonstrate the impacts to the mainline freeway facilities. This plan shall depict the various stages of the work in the construction of the ultimate interchange and identify any future conflicts if the interchange is not built to its proposed ultimate configuration. This plan shall accommodate the. existing traffic movements during construction and identify any required detour roads that would need to be constructed. The Stage Construction plan shall be a conceptual layout at 1:200 scale and does not include a specific Traffic Handling Plan. A TMP at Project Report level will also be prepared for the project that discusses the overall traffic impacts to the surrounding area for the alternative. The need to discuss the impacts to the local arterial roadway system and how the traffic will be 54 handled shall be developed, depicting alternative routes along the local roads as well as identifying any necessary detour roads that would need to be constructed. Products: Stage Construction Conceptual Plans at 1:200 scale; TMP Checklists 4.3.8 No Scope Item — Not Applicable 4.3.9 Design Exception Report As part of the Project Report, it will be necessary to identify those elements of the design that are not in conformance with either the advisory or the mandatory design requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. These exceptions to the design requirements will need to be specifically discussed in a Caltrans formatted Design Exception Report. Products: Fact Sheet for Advisory Non -Standard Features; Fact Sheet for Mandatory Non -Standard Features 4.4 Preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation Consultant shall prepare a preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) for the project that shall include pavement recommendations for both asphalt concrete sections and Portland cement concrete sections. The preliminary GDR shall also provide general design information for standard retaining wall design, slope stability requirements, and surface drainage and permeability requirements of the subgrade material anticipated to be encountered with this project. In addition, the Consultant shall perform a Preliminary Foundation Investigation for the project to support Advance Planning Study. The consultant plans to evaluate any major geotechnical elements that could influence the design of the bridges and structures and will prepare a Preliminary Foundation Report to provide basic bridge design parameters. The investigation to support the preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation will include limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Tasks to support the preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation are presented below. 4.4.1 Exploration Plan, Permits, Site Reconnaissance, and Literature Review An exploration plan will be prepared showing the locations of our proposed borings. The plan will be submitted for comment and approval. This task will also include obtaining any encroachment and well permits required by Caltrans and other agencies to drill soil borings. A geologic/geotechnical reconnaissance by a California Certified Engineering Geologist and/or a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer will be performed • 55 • Project description, including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface drainage, and land use.. • Discussion of geotechnical setting, including regional geology, subsurface soil, and groundwater conditions. • Discussion of regional faulting and seismicity and geologic hazards, including the potential for surface fault rupture, seismic -induced ground deformation or settlement related to liquefaction, seismic compaction, or lateral spreading. • Preliminary recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations. • Preliminary evaluation of gross and surficial stability of the proposed fill slopes. • Preliminary earthwork considerations, including excavation characteristics, and erosion controls. • Preliminary collapse, expansive, and corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended preliminary mitigation measures, if necessary. • Preliminary recommendations for pavement structural design based on traffic indices assumed or provided by the client. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented in a Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report and will include logs of the borings and laboratory test results. 4.4.6 Preliminary Foundation Report A separate Preliminary Foundation Report will be prepared for bridge design and foundation selection. The Preliminary Foundation Report will present preliminary information and recommendations for foundation types, design of embankments, seismic data (including recommended acceleration response spectra in accordance with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria), and other information to evaluate the bridges. 4.5 Project Report The Consultant will prepare a PR according to the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, incorporating City and County requirements and Caltrans design standards. The PR will include all the engineering technical studies and individual reports to support the build and no -build altematives. The draft PR will be submitted for Caltrans, City and County review. All review comments will be discussed in the PDT meeting and incorporated in the final PR for a final approval. Product: PR 57 4.6 Modified Access Report (MAR) To satisfy FHWA requirements, a Modified Access Report (MAR) will be required for the project. These documents are necessary for FHWA to provide its approval to the proposed geometry of the interchange and the manner in which the ties to the existing interstate freeways are to occur. Exhibits for the MAR shall include the Conceptual Alignment Plans from the previous section of this scope of services and a full discussion of the various alternatives evaluated to this point in the project approval process. Products: MAR 4.7 Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) A GAD will be prepared based on the Geometric Base Map prior to the final approval of the PR. The GAD shall include the following items of information: • Forecasting data, including directional movements • Operational analysis of the mainline and affected intersections • Typical sections for each of the facilities within the GAD • Plan view of the facility showing the existing topography, the basic striping, and the major structures • Profile and superelevation diagrams for each of the facilities depicted within the GAD • Design Exception Reports applicable to the GAD • Design Information Bulletin Checklist 77 completed and prepared in discussion format as necessary. The GADs shall be prepared in English units according to the Ca[trans District 8 GAD Requirements dated December 11, 2002. Product: GAD for the Build Alternative 4.8 Traffic Analysis The team will work with the project participants to determine a study area for the traffic analysis. This proposal assumes that the study area will consist of the following intersections: 58 4.8.4 Future Build Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions will be documented for a future scenario in which the project is built. Because the project will not be traffic -inducing, traffic forecasts for the No Build and Build scenarios will be the same. For the purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that traffic analysis of only one Build alternative will be required. The Build condition will assume implementation of the Mid County Parkway project and without the Mid County Parkway project. 4.8.5 Documentation The team will prepare a traffic technical report that will document the results of the analysis described above. A draft version of the report will be circulated to interested parties prior to the preparation of a final version. 60 ATTACHMENT 2 Casalir61.I;1t1nierFrarge l~nviranrr�entADaumgntatlon aatFt Task Estimate: Summary Date: 10.02.06 t lours 'Task 1: Project Management 'Task 2: Survey /Right -of -Way 627 128 'Task 3: Environmental Services Task 4: Engineering Assumes IS/MND 1256 3,487 $87,4591 it-fr4: . $15,129 $108,2411 ffir $473,8021 Labor 5,498 $684,631 ODC's $62,342 Total $746,973 Page 1 Rollup 61 lip/1-15 Interchange Environmental Documentation and PR Assumes WAND Task Labor Hour Estimate: Labor Date: 10.02.06 Milestone Total Project Hours 1 Total Project Cost 1 Jacobs Project Hours 1 Jacobs Project Cost 1 EPIC Project Hours J EPIC Project Cost 1 Kleinfelder Project Hours J Kleinf¢Ider Project COSt LSA Project Hours J LSA Project Cost 1 RBF Project Hours 1 RBF Project Cost 1 VRPA Project Hours 1 VRPA Project Cost J VMS Project Hours 1 VMS Project Cost 1 Task 1: Project Management 1.1 Project Management 339 $40,683 212 $30,773 27 $2,851 12 $2,177 88 $4,881 0 $0 1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls 64 $10,729 52 $8,730 0 $0 12 $1,999 0 $0 0 $0 1.3 Project Meetings 224 $36,047 84 $16,943 68 $9,240 24 $3,881 48 $5,983 0 $0 Total - Task 1 627 $87,459 348 $56,446 0 $0 0 $0 95 $12,092 48 $8,057 136 $10,864 0 $0 Task 2: Survey / Right -of -Entry (ROE) / Right -of -Way 2.1 Survey and Mapping 2.1.1 Topography and Aerial Photography 8 $1,294 0 $0 8 $1,294 Subtotal Task 2.1 8 $1,294 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 8 $1,294 0 $0 0 $0 2.2 Not Applicable 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2.3 Early ROW Studies 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2.4 Prepare Draft Relocation Impact Statement 60 $6,918 60 $6,9 8 0 $0 2.5 Prepare ROW Data Sheets 60 $6,918 60 $6,918 0 $0 2.6 Property Acquisition and Displacement 0 $0 0 $0 Total - Task 2 128 $15,129 0 $0 _ 120, $13,836 0 $0 0 _.. $0 8 $1,294 0 $0 0 $0 Task 3 Environmental 3.1 Environmental Services 3.1.1 Technical Studies 726 $63,177 726 $63,177 3.1.2 Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion 530 $45,064 530 $45,064 Subtotal Task 3.1 1256 $108,241 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1256 $108,241 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total - Task 3. 1256 $108,241 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1256 $108,241 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 ill 4 Engineering 4.1 Preliminary Engineering 590 $81,130 590 $81,130 $0 4.2 Value Analysis 361 $62,193 144 $20,554 $0 217 $41,638 4.3 Engineering Technical Studies/Reports 4.3.1 Utilities 96 $14,224 96 $14,224 $0 4.3.2 Right of Way Engineering Support 76 $11,084 76 $11,084 $0 4.3.3 Cost Estimates 116 $15,800 116 $15,800 $0 4.3.4 Structures Advance Planning Studies 268 $36,579 268 $36,579 $0 4.3.5 Drainage Report 83 $10,461 0 $0 $0 83 $10,461 4.3.6 Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) 245 $30,888 0 $0 $0 245 $30,888 4.3.7 Conceptual Stage Constr. (TMP) 180 $23,570 180 $23,570 $0 4.3.9 Design Exception Report 176 $23,657 176 $23,657 $0 Subtotal Task 4.3 1240 $166,263 912 $124,914 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 328 $41,349 0 $0 0 $0 4.4 Preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation 4.4.1 Exploration Plan and Permits 26 $2,994 26 $2,994 $0 4.4.2 Field Investigations 52 $5,740 52 $5,740 $0 4.4.3 Laboratory Testing 4 $529 4 $529 $0 4.4.4 Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendation 16 $2,338 16 $2,338 $0 4.4.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report 87 $10,353 87 $10,353 $0 4.4.6 Preliminary Foundation Report 79 $9,308 79 $9,308 $0 Subtotal Task 4.4 264 $31,263 0 $0 0 $0 264 $31,263 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4.5 Project Report 4.5 Protect Report 280 $41,059 280 $41,059 $0 Subtotal Task 4.5 280 $41,059 280 $41,059 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4.6 Modified Access Report (MAR) 280 $41,059 280 $41,059 $0 4.7 GAD DRAWINGS 260 $33,401 260 $33,401 $0 4.8 Traffic Analysis 4.8.1 Existing Traffic Conditions 16 $1,288 $0' 16 $1,288 $0 4.8.2 Accident Analysis 16 $1,288 $0 16 $1,288 $0 4.8.3 Future No Build Traffic Conditions 16 $1,288 $0' 16 $1,288 $0 4.8.4 Future Build Traffic Conditions 140 $11,292 $0 140 $11,292 $0 4.8.5 Documentation 24 $2,277 $0 24 $2,277 $0 Subtotal Task 4.8 212 $17,434 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 212 $17,434 0 $0 Total - Task Order 3,487 $473,802 2,466 $342,118 0 $0 264 $31,263 0 $0 328 $41,349 212 $17,434 217 $41,638 Project Subtotals 5,498 $684,631 2,814 $398,564 120 $13,836 264 $31,263 1,351 $120,333 384 - $50,700 348 $28,298 217 $41,638 Other Direct Costs $62,342 $15,943 $762 $17,110 $15,445 $7,000 $2,002 $4,081 Total Project $746,973 $414,506 $14,597 $48,373 $135,778 $57,700 $30,300 $45,719 • total project Page 1 of 1 'Calalco/1-15 Interchange Environmental Documentation and PR Task Direct Cost Estimate: Direct Costs Firm: Date: 10.02.06 All Mileage Postage/Fedex Telephone Reproduction Fees Direct Mail Newsletter Display Boards Meeting Supplies Other Other Other Other 14 Assumes IS/MND is 63 VVV Activity Activity Orig Start Finish ID Description Dur JUN I JUL I AUG 1 SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG 1 SEP 1 OCT I NOV I DEC JAN 1 FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN ,,, ,, ,, ,,, , 1 ,, ,,, I I ,, Ili , I I II,, I I 1 I Ili I I I I I I I I, 1 I l I I I I, 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 ask 1: Project Management I I 11 ,, Meet ngs and Coordination AT ACHMEN T 1200 Meetings and Coordination 200 020CT06 09JUN07 1'`_Proict Kickoff Meeting project Project anage �ttent ontrols ' 1310 Project Kickoff Meeting 1 9 0 020CT06 • Project Management f g 174 230CT06 29MAY07 1300 Project Controls 174 230CT06 29MAY07 Task 2: Survey/Right of Entry (ROE)/Right of Way 'Develop *�Right Right of Way of Way Data Requirements Sheet 2200 Develop Right of Way Requirements 5 020CT06 060CT06 2500 Right of Way Data Sheet 20 090CT06 03NOV06 Task 3: Environmental Services Environmental Doc ments 3000 Environmental Documents 140 020CT06 10APR07 Task 4: Engineering r Project I 1 Value 117 Mobilize/Data TOPO Analysis ITraffic Value Map Analysis Analy Collection Updating is Implementation 4005 Project Mobilize/Data Collection 18 020CT06 190CT06 4010 TOPO Map Updating 30 090CT06 17NOV06 4035 Value Analysis 3 11 OCT06* 130CT06 4800 Traffic Analysis 22 200CT06 20NOV06 4036 Value Analysis Implementation 31 140CT06 13NOV06 4030 Develop Geometric Base Map, Review and Approval 40 21 NOV06 15JAN07 Develop Geometric Base Map, Rediew and frl'PSR and Approval I Prepare Fact Sheets, Appro►kal (by Caltrans) Review and Approval 4037 PSR and Approval (by Caltrans) 0 15APR07* 4060 Prepare Fact Sheets, Review and Approval 107 15DEC06* 01 MAY07 milmmulillimlimPrepare I MAR, 1 Review and Concurrence Prepare GAD, Review and Approval --40 Prepare MAR, Review and Concurrence 85 16JAN07 01 MAY07 4700 Prepare GAD, Review and Approval 184 02MAY07 01 NOV07 4310 Prepare Utility Map 15 15APR07 29APR07 mimilmoillmillPrepare "repare Utility Map Prepare SW,DR, ®Cost APS Review Prepare Estimate Report, and TMP/Construction RevieW and Approval Approval Staging ' 4340 Prepare APS Report, Review and Approval 123 15APR07 15AUG07 4360 Prepare SWDR, Review and Approval 92 15APR07 15JUL07 4370 Prepare TMP/Construction Staging 16 16AUG07 31AUG07 4330 Cost Estimate 1616AUG07 31AUG07 4500 Prepare Project Report 94 01SEP07 03DEC07 Prepare 1 1I FHWA Review Project Report and Approval 4620 MAR FHWA Review and Approval 184 02MAY07 01 NOV07 File' Project Report Review ,MAR and Approva I 1 1 PA/ED I 1 4510 Final Project Report Review and Approval 89 04DEC07 01 MAR08 9000 PANED 0 01 MAR08 • I-15/Cajalco Road Interchange Improvements PA/ED Project Schedule Date 14JUN06 Revision Preliminary Schedule Checked Approved • AGENDA • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement No. 07-65-047-00 for the Joint Funding of the Western Riverside Special Area Management Plan for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-047-00 between the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the county of Riverside, and the Commission for the joint funding of the Western Riverside Special Area Management Plan for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds; and 2) Allocate an additional $16,210 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) funds to assist in the funding of technical support for the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION In March 2006, the Commission approved an allocation of $133,000 in STIP PPM funds to assist in the completion of a SAMP for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds. The SAMP is a comprehensive plan for protecting and enhancing aquatic resources in the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River Watersheds while providing for the permitting of reasonable economic development and public infrastructure/ maintenance activities. The SAMP is part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and is being completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) with active participation from many Riverside County agencies. A SAMP has the following benefits: Agenda Item 91 65 • It will establish the equivalent of a nationwide Corps permit, which is not available within the Santa Margarita and San Jacinto watersheds. • There would be more certainty in the process and most projects (public and private) would not be required to obtain individual Corps permits. • State water quality and streambed alteration permits would also be covered by the SAMP. The Corps has been working on this plan over a number of years and, due to funding constraints, has had to stop and start the work effort many times. The consortium of Riverside County agencies has committed to provide $532,000 in order to complete the SAMP. It is estimated that the plan will be completed in 12-18 months. The attached agreement outlines the responsibilities of the four agencies in the county funding this effort. The RCA will be the contracting agency with the Corps. The RCA is also securing the services of Jacobs Engineering for needed technical support on this project. The total cost of the Jacobs contract shall not exceed $64,840; the RCA has requested each of the agencies split the cost of this technical support. The Commission previously approved use of STIP PPM funds for RCIP activities, and as mentioned previously, in March 2006, allocated $133,000 for the SAMP. With this agenda item an additional $16,210 of PPM is being requested to assist in the technical support work for the project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006l07 Amount: $133,000 in Budget; +$16,210 Source of Funds: STIP PPM Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 106-65-81501 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \A,ua;,D j.G,,,,,i. Date: Attachment: Joint Funding Agreement Agenda Item 91 66 ATTACHMENT 1 105740_13 07-65-047-00 AGREEMENT JOINT FUNDING OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP) FOR THE SAN JACINTO AND UPPER SANTA MARGARITA WATERSHEDS The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, hereinafter called "COUNTY", the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, hereinafter called "RCTC", and WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, hereinafter called "RCA", hereby agree as follows: RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, is the principal federal permitting authority regulating the discharge of fill into "wetlands" and "waters of the United States"; B. WHEREAS, predictable federal permitting decisions are critical to the orderly planning and construction of major public infrastructure projects; and C. WHEREAS, DISTRICT previously entered into an agreement with ACOE to undertake a watershed scale identification and analysis of "wetlands and waters of the U.S." withifl-the'` San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds for the purpose of developing a Special Area Management Plan which will establish Programmatic Regional General Permits and Letters of Permission that will address impacts to ACOE jurisdictional areas located within said watersheds (hereinafter called the "Western Riverside Special Area Management Plan" or "SAMP"); and D. WHEREAS, ACOE'S efforts to complete the SAMP are currently suspended due to a lack of federal funding for said effort; and E. WHEREAS, DISTRICT, COUNTY, RCTC and RCA, each hereinafter individually called "AGENCY" and collectively "AGENCIES", are willing to provide funding as set forth herein in order that ACOE may complete preparation of the SAMP in a timely manner; and 67 105740 13 07-65-047-00 F. WHEREAS, RCA is willing to assume the lead role in contracting with ACOE to complete preparation of the SAMP; and G. WHEREAS, RCA proposes to enter into a contract with Jacobs Civil Inc., hereinafter called "JACOBS", to provide technical support to RCA during the development and implementation of the SAMP; and H. WHEREAS, AGENCY are willing to provide funding as set forth herein in order that JACOBS may provide such technical support in a timely manner; and I. The AGENCIES will each benefit from their participation in this Agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCIES hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. RCA shall enter into a contract with ACOE for completion of the SAMP. The total cost of the ACOE contract shall not exceed five hundred thirty-two thousand dollars ($532,000). 2. The cost of the ACOE contract shall be shared equally amongst AGENCIES. 3. RCA shall invoice AGENCIES monthly for their respective share, twenty-five percent (25%) each, of the ACOE contract cost. 4 RCA shall enter into a contract with JACOBS for needed technical support. The total cost of the JACOBS contract shall not exceed sixty-four thousand eight hundred forty dollars ($64,840). 5. The cost of the JACOBS contract shall be shared equally amongst AGENCIES. 6. RCA shall invoice AGENCIES monthly for their respective pro-rata share, twenty- five percent (25%) each, of the Jacobs contract cost. 7. AGENCIES shall reimburse RCA within thirty (30) days of receiving an invoice from RCA. 8. Each party, as to any and all loss, damage, claim for damage, liability, expense or cost, including attorneys' fees, which arise out of such parry's (including its employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents) act or omission regarding any work to be performed by or authority delegated to such party under this Agreement, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other parties and their 68 105740 13 07-65-047-00 respective officers and employees, except as to sole negligence or willful misconduct of the other party(ies). 9. Any notices sent or required to be sent to any party shall be mailed to the following addresses: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3656 California. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4080 Lemon Street, 14d' Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3656 Attn: Transportation and Land Management Agency WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 4080 Lemon Street, 12d' Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3656 10. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of 11. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be declared severable and shall be given full force and effect to the extent possible. 12. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for change of venue in such proceedings to any other county. 13. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hereto and with the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. No provision contained herein shall be construed against DISTRICT solely because, as a matter of convenience, it prepared this Agreement in final form. 14. Any waiver by AGENCIES of any breach by the other of any one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of any of the respective AGENCIES to require from the others exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of the Agreement shall not be construed as 69 105740 13 07-65-047-00 in any manner changing the terms hereof, or stopping the respective AGENCIES from enforcement hereof. 15. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts or copies, hereinafter called "COUNTERPART", by the parties hereto. When each party has signed and delivered at least one COUNTERPART to the other parties hereto, each COUNTERPART shall be deemed an original and, taken together, shall constitute one and the same Agreement, which shall be binding and effective as to the parties hereto. 16. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as their final expression with respect to the matters herein, and is a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof. This Agreement shall not be changed or modified except by the written consent of both parties hereto. // // 70 105740 13. 07-65-047-00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on (to be filled in by Clerk of the Board) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By ANTHONY CARSTENS, Director Transportation and Land Management Agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOE S. RANK County Counsel By NEAL KIPNIS Deputy County Counsel RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT By MARION ASHLEY, Chairman Board of Supervisors ATTEST: NANCY ROMERO Clerk of the Board By Deputy COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By BOB BUSTER, Chairman Board of Supervisors ATTEST: NANCY ROMERO Clerk of the Board By Deputy Dated (SEAL) JPS:blj 71 105740 13 07-65-047-00 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY By By THOMAS B. MULLEN KELLY SEYARTO, Chairman Interim Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: BEST, BEST & KRIEGER, LLP HONEY BERNAS Legal Counsel Clerk of the Board By By (SEAL) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By By ERIC HALEY MARION ASHLEY, Chairman Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: BEST, BEST, and KRIEGER, LLP Jennifer Harmon Legal Counsel Clerk of the Board By By JPS: 72 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Study Phase II STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 07-31-051-00 to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas to perform the Western County Freeway Strategic Plan Phase II effort for $724,504, which includes a contingency of $242,138; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-052-00 with the county of Riverside and the city of Temecula for their 1 /3 participation in funding the study effort (up to $241,501 each); 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Approve adjustments to the FY 2006/07 budget for a $483,002 increase in revenues and a $724,504 increase in expenditures. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission received a presentation of the Phase I Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Study report, findings and recommendations. The Phase I report performed a feasibility level review of the questions "does growth have an impact on freeway capacity? If so, what amount of that impact could be attributable to growth/new development? In summary, the major findings of the Phase I report were: • The study found that growth does have a measurable impact on freeway capacity and the estimated share of its impact on the Western County freeway system was calculated to be in the range of 41 % to 44%. Agenda Item 10 73 • Analysis of the data output from the SCAG 2004 Regional Transportation Plan model demonstrates in the year 2030, an additional 652 lane miles of freeway capacity are needed in Western Riverside County to provide a Level of Service (LOS) E operating condition on freeways. Additionally, the report included an estimated range of cost for the improvements of $8,234 to $13.346 billion. This estimate is not a complete estimate of the potential costs of providing the future freeway capacity needs as the estimate does not fully account for the seven Western County freeway to freeway interchange improvements needed to support the projected freeway capacity improvements and the estimate only included very rough estimates of what may be required to address the Orange County/Riverside County SR 91 and I-215/SR-60 Box Springs grade future capacity needs. The Commission received the report at the July 12, 2006 meeting and approved the following recommendations: • Direct staff to develop a comprehensive funding strategy to address how future freeway capacity needs for Western Riverside County can be delivered; the strategy will include but not be limited to the 2009 Measure A Delivery Plan development, the review and possible implementation of Public/Private Partnerships (PPP), an updated Measure A revenue forecast, participation in the development of criteria for project selection by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the infrastructure bonds on the November 2006 ballot, and the development of information necessary to support the potential implementation of a development fee to support freeway improvements; • Request the city of Temecula and the county of Riverside to participate with the Commission on a 1 /3 share basis to fund the Phase II Western County Freeway Strategic Plan effort. The estimated budget is $750,000; and • Direct staff to develop a scope of services and cost with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas for the development of Phase 11 work for the Freeway Strategic Study and return to the Commission with the scope and cost proposal for consideration at the September 2006 Commission meeting. Attached are the proposed scope, schedule and cost of the Phase II Western County Strategic Freeway Study. The work will be coordinated with the Commission's on -going effort of developing a 10-Year Delivery Plan for the 2009 Measure A program, the Public/Private Partnership effort and the development of an updated Measure A revenue forecast. These efforts, along with knowledge of the November election outcomes (state infrastructure bond Propositions 1 A and 1 B and Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Agenda Item 10 74 Measure M extension) will provide a general basis for how the Commission crafts a comprehensive strategy to deliver future Western County freeway capacity needs. The proposed schedule for the study is approximately 12 months and the major components of the analysis work will be completed in approximately 9 months. The total proposed budget is $724,504, which includes a contingency of $242,138. The contingency proposed for this effort is large primarily due to the unknowns associated with identifying issues/challenges associated with delivering the freeway to freeway interchange improvements, SR 91 capacity issues to Orange County and the 1-215/60 Box Springs grade. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $724,504 Source of Funds: Western County Measure A Highway Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 222-31-41203 P3018 $483,002 (revenue) 222-31-81501 P3018 $724,504 (expenditure) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \144.1,„i„:01"u Date: 10/04/06 Attachment: Freeway Strategic Study Phase II Work Outline Agenda Item 10 75 • • • Freeway Strategic Study Phase II Work Outline This work outline summarizes the technical services recommended by PB to support RCTC during the development of a Freeway Strategic Plan. The primary purpose of the study is to develop an integrated strategy to address future freeway infrastructure needs. A key element of this strategy is consideration of a development impact fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development on the freeway system in Western Riverside County. Key tasks associated with Phase II of the Freeway Strategic Plan include: 1. Refining the examination of current freeway capacities and deficiencies 2. Identifying feasible improvement options for meeting future freeway capacity needs 3. Preparing concept level improvement cost estimates 4. Identifying available funding opportunities and determining the approximate freeway improvement funding shortfall 5. Establishing a rational nexus and fair share fee for a freeway impact fee program b. Preparing the Freeway Strategic Plan documentation Phase I of this study has determined the feasibility of establishing a traffic impact mitigation fee as part of a comprehensive package of funding opportunities to address future freeway needs. This second phase of the study will quantify in detail the freeway improvement needs and associated costs to address future freeway needs, more accurately identify current funding sources and funding shortfall, and establish the nexus for a new freeway traffic impact mitigation fee consistent with the requirements of the State of California Mitigation Fee Act thereby allowing the Commission to enact a fee should a fee be deemed necessary. The following work outline summarizes the general elements recommended to complete Phase II of the Freeway Strategic Plan. The outline includes the development of conceptual plans that will be necessary to better assess project feasibility and refine cost estimates. While the relative magnitude of future freeway needs can be reasonably determined at a planning level, completion of these conceptual plans establish a more accurate assessment of future funding needs as the basis for developing a Freeway Strategic Plan. The task budget proposes completing conceptual engineering for a limited number of locations (with actual locations to be determined based on where information is not available from other study efforts) to support Phase II. The task budget also established a contingency that could be utilized to complete conceptual engineering for additional locations should this information be deemed necessary. PARSONS BR/NCKERMOFF 76 1 REVISED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 Task 1: Project Coordination, Meeting and Presentations Objective: Products: Activities: Coordinate the exchange of technical information and facilitate decision - making on the specific elements of the Freeway Strategic Plan between the participating jurisdictions and within the RCTC Committee structure. 1. Regular progress meetings with RCTC technical staff and the study's Advisory Group 2. Presentation of final Phase II results to the appropriate RCTC Committee and Commission 1. Participate in regular Technical Staff and Advisory Group meetings to report study progress and to support the technical aspects of the study 2. Develop PowerPoint presentations to facilitate the presentation of technical information, study findings and recommendations to the various relevant RCTC committees Task 2: Freeway Capacities and Deficiencies Objective: Examine current and future freeway capacities and identify freeway system deficiencies Products: Activities: PARSONS BR/NCKERHOFF 1. Table of existing freeway volume to capacity ratios and levels of service 2. Table of future freeway volume to capacity ratios and levels of service for various alternative improvement strategies 3. Recommended list of future freeway capacity needs 1. Update and tabulate existing freeway traffic count data from available sources based on information developed as part of Phase I 2. In cooperation with RCTC (or SCAG), obtain, review and validate the most current version of the regional travel demand model developed for Riverside County as the basis for evaluating future freeway system deficiencies 3. Prepare GIS-model graphics interface matrix for each model link node pair corresponding to each of the 119 study segments 4. Using the RCTC (or SCAG) model, evaluate four future year (2030) alternative network scenarios including a future baseline; future with TUMF arterial improvements, future with CETAP corridor improvements and future combined TUMF/CETAP scenario 5. Using the existing conditions data and future forecast data described previously, quantify existing and future freeway system deficiencies and capacity needs 2 REVISED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 77 • • Task 3: Future Freeway Improvement Needs Objective: Products: Activities: Identify feasible improvement options for meeting future freeway capacity needs 1. Table of feasible future freeway improvement options 2. Concept level plans for future freeway improvement needs 1. Based on future freeway system deficiencies determined as part of the previous task, identify future freeway capacity needed to meet demand 2. Review related RCTC study documents (including SR-91 MIS and Mid - County Parkway EIS) and assemble a summary of relevant project information 3. Complete a qualitative screening evaluation of various improvement options for meeting future freeway capacity needs, including freeway to freeway interchange locations 4. Obtain aerial photography at a suitable resolution (1 "=500' or similar) to support preparation of conceptual plans 5. Develop concept level plans for future freeway capacity needs (including freeway to freeway interchanges) in select corridor locations not subject io detailed evaluation as part of a related ROTC study effort 6. Develop a table of conceptually feasible improvement options for meeting future freeway capacity needs Task 4: Project Cost Estimates Objective: Products: Activities: PARSONS. BR/NCKERHOFF Prepare concept level cost estimates for recommended freeway improvements 1. Table of concept level cost estimates for freeway capacity improvements 1. Coordinate with RCTC and Ca!trans staff to obtain appropriate unit cost standards as basis for developing conceptual cost estimates 2. Prepare concept level cost estimates for freeway improvement needs (including freeway to freeway interchanges) identified as part of the previous task 3 78 REVISED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 Task 5: Funding Opportunities and Shortfall Objective: Products: Activities: Determine anticipated funding levels from available funding opportunities as the basis for quantifying funding shortfall l . Table of anticipated future funding levels from. available opportunities 2. Table quantifying anticipated future freeway needs funding shortfall l . Review results of related RCTC initiatives (including revised Measure A revenue projection, public/private partnership examination), other local initiatives (WRCOG TUMF program), and state initiatives (November 2006 transportation bond issue) to quantify and determine anticipate levels of funding for future freeway projects 2. Compare anticipated funding levels with estimated project costs prepared as part of the previous task to determine potential funding shortfall 3. Summarize other potential opportunities for additional funding generation based on future freeway capacity needs including development impact fees (to mitigate the impact of new development within Western Riverside County) and regional funding programs (to address the impact of pass through trips on Western Riverside County as a result of economic activity and development occurring outside of Western Riverside County) Task 6: Freeway Impact Fee Nexus Determination Objective: Establish a rational nexus and fair share fee for a freeway impact fee program Products: 1. Technical memorandum establishing a rational nexus and fair share fee for a freeway impact fee program 2. Peer review of nexus findings Activities: 1. Coordinate with SCAG staff to obtain most current population and employment forecast information as basis for determining anticipated growth in Westem Riverside County 2. Quantify the impact of future development on the -freeway system in Western Riverside County based on the findings of previous tasks 3. Quantify the impact of existing needs and pass through trips on the freeway system in Western Riverside County building upon information developed as part of previous tasks 4. Determine the share of future freeway improvement needs and associated costs attributable to the impact of new development in Western Riverside County 5. Calculate the fair share fee to mitigate the impact of new development on the freeway system in Western Riverside County 6. Summarize the finding of this task in a technical memorandum 7. Conduct a peer review of the nexus study findings to verify consistency with state statutes and legal precedents PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4 REVISED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 79 • • • Task 7: Strategic Plan Documentation Objective: Document the findings and recommendations of Phase II of the Freeway Strategic Plan Products: 1. Study report documenting the findings and recommendations of this phase of the Freeway Strategic Plan Activities: 1. Document the findings of the study including future freeway improvement needs, estimated costs, funding opportunities, funding shortfall and recommended actions in a consolidated study report 2. Complete final revisions to the draft study report based on comments provided by the client agencies and other participating interests PARSONS BR/NCKERHOFF 5 REVISED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 80 ® • RCTC Freeway Strategic Study Phase II Project Schedule Technical Tasks Month 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 Task 1 Project Coordination, Meetings and Presentations Progress Meetings ❑ Pi I ❑ 00 ❑ ❑ 00 ❑ I 2 0❑ F_J ❑ Presentations _ ❑i ❑o Task 2 Freeway Capacities and Deficiencies Inventory Freeway Characteristics _ Review and Validate Model _ GIS-Model Graphics Interface _ Evaluate Alternative Scenarios Quantify Freeway Deficiencies _ Task 3 Future Freeway Improvement Needs Identify Freeway Capacity Needs 11111 Summarize Project Information Evaluate Improvement Options !� Obtain Base Mapping Develop Conceptual Engineering M1111 11111 _W;f .V 1 Tabulate Feasible Options S. xr Task 4 Project Cost Estimates Develop Unit Cost Standards _ Prepare Cost Estimates r Task 5 Funding Opportunities and Shortfall Review Current Funding Determine Funding Shortfall _ Summarize Funding Opportunities Task 6 Freeway Impact Fee Nexus Determination Obtain Demographic Information _ Quantify Impact of Development _11111 Quantiy Existing Needs and Pass Through Determine Share Attributable to Growth Calculate Fair Share Fee Prepare Technical Memorandum _ _11111 Conduct Peer Review MIME Task 7 Strategic Plan Development Draft Study Report Final Study Report !Ill_Mill _ _ Legend I Task Active Contingent Task Active (if needed) Technical Staff Coordination Meeting Study Advisory Committee Meeting Plans and Programs Committee Presentation/Action Transportation Commission Presentation/Action Revised: October 2, 2006 • Task Level Budget - RCTC Freeway Stratgeic Plan, Phase II Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) Revised: October 2, 2006 Direct Labor Rafe $64.00 $39.50 $62.00 $34.00 $32.00 $32.00 Staff lifie ` a g m d `o 9- S o f lec o S S c z 0 n 'a^ -ao u co '4'a o` 0 a c E v a o o x 0 .a- _ o u 0 .°- Task 0 - Project Adminishalion 56 100 0 0 0 88 244 $10,350 Progress Reports/Invoices 20 36 72 128 $5,006 Project Management Plan 16 32 48 $2288 Project Quality Control Audits 20 32 16 68 $3,056 Task 1 - Project Coordination, Meefings and PresentuNons 88 88 0 0 32 0 208 $10,132 Advisory Group Meetings 72 72 20 164 $8,092 Results Presentation 16 16 12 44 $2,040 Task 2 - Freeway Capacifies and Deficiencies 116 308 0 0 136 0 560 $23,942 Inventory Freeway Characteristics 16 28 24 68 $2.898 Review and Validate Model 12 20 32 $1,558 GIS-Model Graphics Interface 16 52 8 76 $3,334 Evaluate Alternative NetworkScenarios 44 168 72 284 $11,756 Quantify Freeway Deficiencies 28 40 32 100 $4,396 Task 3- Future Freeway Improvement Needs . 106 140 218 394 182 0 1,040 $45.050 Identify Freeway Capacity Needs 20 28 16 64 $2,898 Summarize Relevant Project Information 12 24 20 56 $2356 Quaftative Evaluation of Improvement Options 48 64 20 132 $6,240 Obtain Base Mapping for Concept Plans 4 4 4 40 52 $1920 Develop Conceptual Engineering Plans 10 8 214 390 86 708 $30,236 Tabulate Conceptually Feasible Improvement Options 12 16 28 $1,400 Task 4- Project Cost Estimates 18 0 80 320 0 0 418 $16,992 Develop Unit Cost Standards 2 40 80 122 $5,328 Prepare Concept level Cost Estimates 16 40 240 296 $11,664 Task 5 - Funding Opporhmifies and Shortfall 76 116 0 0 40 0 232 $10,726 Review Current Funding Initlatves 32 48 16 96 $4,456 Determine Potential Funding Shortfall 24 ' 36 12 72 $3342 Summarize Potential Funding Opporfunitles/Needs 20 32 12 64 $2,928 Task 6 - Freeway Impact Fee Nexus Deferminafion 152 216 D 0 104 0 472 $21,588 Obtain Content Demographic Information 12 20 24 56 $2,326 Quantify Impact of Future Devebpment on Freeways 24 40 16 80 $3,628 Quantity Ex6ling Needs and Pass Through Trips 24 56 16 96 $4,260 Determine Share of Needs Attributable to Growth 12 20 12 44 $1 942 CaICuklte Fair Share Fee 28 16 16 60 $2.936 Prepare Technical Memorandum 40 48 20 108 $5.096 Conduct Peer Review 12 16 28 $1 400 Task 7 - Strategic Plan Documentation 64 72 0 0 42 0 178 $8,284 Document Holdings in Draft Study Report 40 44 30 114 $5258 Complete Final Revisions to Study Report 24 28 12 64 $3,026 Total Hours 676 1,040 298 714 536 88 3,352 Total Labor $147,064 Fringe + Overhead (164%) $241,185 Labor + hinge+ Overhead $388,249 Fixed Fee (12%) $46,590 Direct Cosh Peer Review $12,000 Aerial Photography/Base Mapping $11 D00 Other Direct Costs $24,527 Contingency $242 138 TOTAL CONTRACT COST $724,504 82 AGENDA ITEM 11 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Edda Rosso, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorize Request for Proposals for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct an environmental justice analysis and community outreach to supplement the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) currently underway. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2005, the Commission approved participation in the development of a MCGMAP in order to form a consensus for an implementation plan for the region in partnership with the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and San Diego. This effort, which is scheduled for completion March 2007, will model goods movement growth trends, identify possible public -private partnerships, and highlight near to long-term strategies, as well as develop a list of potential projects to be funded. To build upon this collaborative effort, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) submitted a proposal on behalf of the MCGMAP agencies, requesting grant assistance to supplement the regional goods movement study effort. In June 2006, the Ca!trans Division of Transportation Planning awarded OCTA $200,000 in competitive grant funds to conduct targeted community outreach and environmental justice analysis to support the MCGMAP currently in development. The grant has a 12% local match requirement of $24,000, of which, $6,000 is the Commission's share. The study will target representative communities within each county in the goods movement study area and establish a series of community forums to obtain feedback on potential strategies that may lessen the impacts of goods movement activities on minority and low-income communities. Agenda Item 11 83 The study will take approximately 12 months to complete and be administered by Commission staff on behalf of OCTA and the other MCGMAP partner agencies. The study will likely include the following work elements: • Identify representative target communities within each county in the goods movement study area; • Analyze potential environmental justice impacts resulting from goods movement activities and investments; • Establish local community feedback groups and obtain feedback; • Identify best practices and develop potential strategies to avoid or reduce potential impacts and maximize opportunities; and • Develop and finalize a Strategic Report and Guidebook for Communities. The results of the effort will be incorporated into the goods movement planning effort to foster community involvement early on in the planning process while facilitating the building of positive community relationships as the goods movement effort advances. The result will be a set of strategies that can be used in the planning and development of goods movement projects, and by local agencies and. community organizations in reducing potential burdens of goods movement on local communities. The Commission will seek consultant assistance to perform this work over a 12 month period with a budget not to exceed $224,000. Source of funding identified for the study is the OCTA Caltrans planning grant. The anticipated schedule for retention of a consultant firm is as follows: October 11, 2006 November 9, 2006 November 20, 2006 December 13, 2006 Agenda Item 11 Release of Request for Proposal Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Interviews of Short -Listed Firms Award of Contract by Commission 84 AGENDA I TEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005/06 Transit Operator Performance Statistics Report, Status of Productivity Improvement Program and Transit Visioning Process STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the presentation on the FY 2005/06 Transit Operator Performance Statistics Report, the role of the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as an aid in assisting transit operators in determining cost efficiency, and a report on the transit visioning process. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under Public Utility Code (PUC) Section 99244, the Commission must annually identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the operating cost of transit operations. Part of the process includes the review of various data elements including ridership, operating costs and passenger fare revenue. On a system -wide basis, following are the results of ridership, passenger fare and operating expenses when comparing FY 2004/05 (actual data) to FY 2005/06 (preliminary data): • Ridership indicates a decrease of 1.78%; • However, passenger fare revenues reflect an increase of 8.86%; and • Total operating expenses reflect an increase of 10.62%. Agenda Item 12 85 For historical purposes, the following table is provided detailing ridership, passenger fares and operating expenses covering FY 2000/01 through FY 2005/06: $100,000,000 $90,000,000 - $80,000,000 - $70,000,000 - $60,000,000 - $50,000,000 - $40,000,000 $30,000,000 - $20,000,000 - $10,000,000 - $- SUMMARY Riverside County Systemwide Ridership, Passenger Fares & Operating Expenses FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Actual) ems Operating Expenses ymga Passenger Fares -,Ridership FY 2005/06 (Preliminary) 16,000,000 - 15,600,000 - 15,200,000 - 14,800,000 14,400,000 - 14,000,000 - 13,600,000 13,200,000 12,800,000 12,400,000 12,000,000 FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Actual) FY 2005/06 (Preliminary) Operating Expenses $ 64,664,218 $ 68,528,817 $ 74,283,099 $ 79,958,254 $ 85,067,855 $ 94,098,794 Passenger Fares $ 16,801,860 $ 17,715,747 $ 20,015,834 $ 21,439,494 $ 22,755,506 $ 24,771,296 Ridership 13,118,470 13,497,981 13,628,071 14,351,894 14,067,039 13,816,884 Based on preliminary data for FY 2005/06, the following four transit operators report an increase in ridership over FY 2004/05: Increase in One -Way Agency FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 Trips % Increase City of Beaumont 118,212 118,618 406 0.34% Commuter Rail 2,541,574 2,700,117 158,543 6.24% Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 43,173 51,071 7,898 18.29% SunLine Transit Agency 3,422,879 3,558,317 135,438 3.96% Staff from Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency attributes its ridership increase to its commuter services as well as a community based marketing campaign it implemented. Agenda Item 12 86 • The following four transit operators report a decrease in ridership over FY 2004/05 based on preliminary data for FY 2005/06: Decrease in One -Way Agency FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 Trips % Decrease City of Banning 201,964 189,139 12,825 6.35% City of Corona 228,904 205,233 23,671 10.34% City of Riverside 152,752 145,223 7,529 4.93% Riverside Transit Agency 7,357,581 6,849,166 508,415 6.91% It should be noted that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) attributes the decline in ridership to the agency's fare increase that was implemented late in FY 2004/05. However, for the first quarter of FY 2006/07, RTA reports that the ridership trends are increasing, largely due to an increase in discretionary riders on its commuter services. The city of Corona also attributes its decline in ridership to its fare increase that was implemented at the beginning of FY 2005/06. Role of PIP: Aid Transit Operators in Determining Cost Efficiency As previously reported in the Commission's Triennial Performance Audit, operating costs for transit services increased between 26% and 110% while ridership ranged from a decrease of 8% to an increase of 100% during the FY 2000/01 through FY 2002/03 audit period. Both the Commission as well as the transit operators will undergo another Triennial Performance Audit this fiscal year covering FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06. At that time, a full analysis of operating costs, ridership and fare box recovery ratios will be undertaken. In 2005, concerned that operating costs were continuing to increase in comparison to ridership, staff was directed to prioritize analysis and discussion of the disparity between ridership and operating expenses. As a result of those discussions, the Commission reaffirmed the PIP as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide a better service while improving cost efficiency. The PIP established two mandatory targets for the transit operators to meet in FY 2006/07: 1) operating cost per revenue hour (tied to CPI); and 2) fare box recovery ratio (between 10% and 20%) depending on the type and geographical location of services provided. In addition to the mandatory targets, there are between six (bus operators) and eight (commuter rail) discretionary targets for the operators to select from; once selected, the operators must plan their services to meet a minimum of three discretionary targets within a variance of +/- 15%. Agenda Item 12 87 The performance indicators are critical in ensuring that service can be maximized in an efficient manner. More importantly, the PIP is a cooperative process between the Commission and the transit providers to work together on approaches to improve mobility in an environment fraught with rising costs for fuel, labor and insurance. TransTrack — Transit Performance Manager Software In addition to fully applying the PIP for this fiscal year, the Commission purchased TransTrack, a web -based transit performance manager software application and training package to assist transit operators and Commission staff in compiling, tabulating and reporting transit operating information for use in the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) as well as various reports including monthly management reports, transit operator reports, and annual reports due to external agencies (e.g., State Controller and National Transit Database reports). Reports generated from TransTrack assist both Commission staff and policy board members in reviewing .compliance with the PIP targets as well as state -mandated requirements to effectively use Transportation Development Act funds. Attachment 1 provides a system -wide summary of the FY 2005/06 Performance Statistics for transit services in Riverside County. Attachment 2 provides a route -by -route summary of both fixed route and dial -a -ride services for each of the eight transit operators in Riverside County. It should be noted that staff from each transit operator entered its agency's data into the TransTrack program. The reports identify various data elements by route and service type. The ability to produce route by route reports will enable transit operator staff to review pertinent data elements (ridership, operating costs, fare box revenue, etc.) and assist in making appropriate service changes. PIP — Next Steps: Analyze Results of First Six Months of PIP As identified in the PIP, reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity will remain with the transit operators and their governing boards; however, the Commission, as part of its oversight responsibilities must ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds efficiently and effectively. It is anticipated that in the January/February timeframe, Commission staff will present the first six months of FY 2006/07 actual data in comparison to. the approved PIP targets. Through this process, each transit operator will identify whether it is in compliance with the PIP. Upon completion of a review by Commission and transit operator staff to determine whether instances of non-compliance exist, the following steps will occur: Agenda Item 12 88 1) A meeting will be scheduled with transit operator and Commission staff to jointly develop an action plan to meet the PIP targets; 2) The agreed upon action plan, together with the transit operator's performance report, will be presented to the Commission for approval; and 3) The approved action plan/methodology to come into compliance with the PIP will be included as part of the following fiscal year's SRTP. Riverside County Transit Visioning/Conceptual Planning The creation of a transit vision was one of the recommendations made in the Commission's FY 2001 — FY 2003 Triennial Performance Audit.' To assist with developing a transit vision, in May 2005, Commission staff was directed to work with transit operators and program staff to develop a ten-year conceptual plan identifying operating and capital needs utilizing Measure A and TDA funding. The intent behind the conceptual planning process is to lay the ground work for creating a vision of transit service for Riverside County. Since that time, much progress has been made in developing county -wide transit plans including the identification of 68 potential projects. A detailed status report on the transit visioning process will be presented to the Transit Policy Committee at its October 19, 2006 meeting. Attachments: 1) FY 2005/06 Performance Statistics Summary 2) FY 2005/06 Performance Statistics by Transit Operator ' "Create a Vision of Transit Service for Riverside County: The Commission, working in cooperation with the transit operators (including Metrolink), should create a vision of transit service for Riverside County that ensures that the transit operators provide services that meet the county's transit needs and adhere to applicable performance standards established in state law and by the Commission. The vision should include a process that includes input from the operators, public policymakers, and community stakeholders. The visions should provide overall policy direction in the provision of a coordinated county -wide transit system...." Agenda Item 12 89 Riverside County FY 2005/06 Performance Statistics July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 Passengers Revenue Hours Operating Costs Passenger Revenue Passengers Cost Per Cost Per Per Rev. Hr. Passenger Rev. Hr. • ATTACHMENT Passenger Passenger Fa rebox Revenue Per Revenue Per Recovery Passenger Rev. Hr. Ratio City of Banning 189,139 14,714,2 $1,063,991 $119,797 12.9 $5.63 $72.31 $0.63 $8.14 11.25% City of Beaumont 118,618 18,346.6 $1,027,114 $70,988 6.5 $8.66 $55.98 $0.60 $3.87 6,91% City of Corona 205,233 32,428.1 $1,634,823 $224,384 6.3 $7.97 $50.41 $1.09 $6.92 13.72% City of Riverside 145,223 36,737.9 $2,430,153 $235,601 4.0 $16.73 $66.15 $1.62 $6.41 9.69% PWTA 51,071 11,097.5 $748,977 $75,854 4.6 $14.67 $67.49 $1.49 $6.84 10.12% RCTC Commuter Rail 2,700,117 61,642.0 , $28,276,500 $14,049,615 43.8 $10.47 $458.72 $5.20 $227.92 49.68% RTA 6,849,166 602,582.6 $40,889,058 $7,144,992 11.4 $5.97 $67,86 $1,04 $11,86 17.47/0 SunLine Transit 3,558,317 176,051.7 $18,028,178 $2,850,065 20.2 $5.07 $102.40 $0.80 $16.19 15.80% System Total 13,816,884 953,600.5 $94,098,794 $24,771,297 14.5 $6.81 $98.68 $1.79 $25.98 26.32% 90 66 T!a T aped 900Z/Z/Ot miefieup{y pedisueu %SZ'TT 17T'8$ E9'0$ T£'ZL$ £9'S$ 6'ZT L6e6TT$ I66`£90'T$ Z'trTLIP T 6ET'68T :1E101'd'S 0$ Sf18-3N-Ntl9 %ZZ'OT 981$ OZ'T$ 9L'Li+$ trL'TT$ T'tr L9£'TT$ OWITT$ Z'LZ£'Z £9d6 INCI-NV9 %EL'OT trZ19$ SS'0$ 9L'9L$ TVS$ 0'ST 966'££$ 96e9TE$ Wall, TS6'19 9-NV9 '%8L'17T EE'OT$ 55'0$ L8'69$ SL'£$ 9'81 9£9`17$ Ltr£'98Z$ Wart, 6Z6'9L S-Ntl8 %17T'6 69'L$ 9L'0$ ET'tr8$ ZS'8$ 6'6 1,6L'T£$ 60L'Ltr£$ 0'££T`b 96L'Otr T-NV8 : # mod open ',IN aa6uassed •aH •Aaa aa6uassed vH 'naa anuanaa AaanoDaa •naa aad aad aad ;sop aadlsoD aad JO6uassed xogaaed anuanaa anuanaa saa6uessed aa6uassed aa6uassed s;soo 6upeaado sanoH sasSuessed wen lane, anuanaa 900Z '0£ aunt al 500Z 'T /nC -- awe-ol -aeaA ao; socls/0u aouecuaoped 6uluue8 3o A4D uemAoad aMnaaS _ _ "d'S sol4S EJS aouewaOped -- 90/500Z Ad Z tINHOVIIV • pI aBed • 9oortelot mie5euem patiSueu °Lot6'9 %66'S °%oZL'6 % SC'S %E6'L L8'£$ 89•£$ 90'b$ 967$ T6'ti$ 09'0$ 98'D$ svo$ bS'o$ LS'0$ 86'SS$ 991$ S'9 886'06 HT'LZ01$ 9'96£'8T BTVEITT 6Z'19$ 0VVT$ £'b 84L'17Z$ 9ZS'ZT17$ £'T£L'9 9S9'8Z ZltlIT138 D$ sns-vas 9L'tb$ 9S17$ T'6 869'ST$ bLb'191$ C998'E L£Z'S£ b-138 90'SS$ S6'6$ S'S SOb'TT$ 9b6'11$ Z'648'E 80£'TZ £-t99 9819$ ZZ'L$ . 91! LET'6T$ 69T'T17Z$ 17'668'£ Lib'££ Z 738 1e701 'd'S :# aanoa Ones vH Ja6uassed JH •naa Ja6uassed `''iµ ,nab enuenea sasop moil • sJa6uassed wan we, km/wawa •naa Jed dad Jed;sop Jed pop Vad Ja6uassed 6upe10410 anuanaa xogwed enuenaa anuenaa sirssed Ja6uassed Je6uessed 900Z'0£ aum- 04 soot 'T Apr -- Wep-01-.1eaA ao) so10.14ejs aouetwoped ;uowneOg;o AID :Jewom aalruaS •d'S 5,1451494.5 aouecuroPed -- 90/500Z Ad £6 OTJo r dosed 900Z/UOT ,ria6eueN p ausztvi %ZL'£T Z6'9$ '/o££'bi LS'9$ %WET ES'L$ %9L'17T Zb'9$ 60.4 98'0$ L9'T$ 98'0$ Tb'06$ £8'Sb$ EL'86$ 8b'Eb$ L6'L$ 86'S$ SO'£T$ TB'S$ £'9 68E$ZZ$ EZ8'b£9'T$ TIM/EC ££Z'SOZ L'L 8L6'99$ Z6T'L96$ Z'£6T'OT 90T'8L CIBB-B0D S'b SZZ'66$ S8S'ELL$ Z'ZLT'EI ' 08Z'6S ava•aoD S'L T8T'8S$ 9170`126£$ LT90% L178'L9 una-uoi :Iplol'd'S :# aanoa okay •aH ae6uessed vH •nay aa6uassed 'aH 'nay anuanay s;so0 sanoH snauessed wen lana'l Aaano3ay 'nay aad aad aad 4s00 aad WO aad aa6uassed Bul;eaad0 anuanay xogaaed enuanay anuanay saa6uessed 4a6uassed aaBuessed 900Z 10£ aunt" al SOOZ Ain! -- a;ep-of-JeoA aoj S.11.15:14c4S aOuecu OPed emo0 40 40 meNnad apinaag sagsPe4s aoueruaopad -- 90/5002"Ad • Level Item FY 2005/05 -- Performance Statistics S.P. Service Provider: City of Riverside Performance Statistics for Year -To -Date -- July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005 Passenger Passenger Passengers Revenue Revenue Farebox Revenue Operating Passenger Per Cost Per Cost Per Per Per Rev. Recovery Passengers Hours Costs Revenue Rev. Hr. Passenger Rev. Hr. Passenger Hr. Ratio Route #: S.P. Total: R55-OAR 145,223 36,737.9 $2,430,153 $235,601 4.0 $16.73 $66.15 $1.62 $6.41 9.69% 145,223 36,737.9 $2,430,153 $235,601 4.0 $16.73 $66.15 $1.62 $6.41 9.69% TransTrack Manager"" 610/11Z006 Page 4 of 10 S6 Oilo g aged 9002/Z/OT „JaBeuefri pausu¢i1 c/a I'01 178'9$ 617'I$ 6b'L9$ L9'bT$ 91, bS9'SL$ LL6'W$ S'LEC'TT TLO'TS :lelol'd'S %ZZ'OT I£'8$ SL'£$ 9Z18$ S9'9£$ Z'Z EL6'LT$ 609'SLI$ ST9T'Z L6L$ 21V0-VIAAd %Lb'b£ OZ'ZZ$ 9Z1$ 9£'+r9$ 99'£$ 9.LT S96'£1$ I9S'Ob$ O'0E9 ILO'TI £-V1AAd 0/099'Z SO'S$ TZ'I$ bT'b9$ bb'ST$ Z'b 6£T$Z$ L8L'90£$ b'E9L'b SL8'6T Z-V1AAd %17L'9 T9'S$ 6Z'T$ bI'b9$ EL'bT$ b'4 LSL'6I$ OZ8'SZZ$ 9'0ZS'£ SZE'ST I-V1AAd :# a7�oa. oney •J}{ Ja6uassed •JH 'nay Ja6uassed •JH 'nay anuanaa s;sop sJnoH wa6uassed well WW1 karnoaab •nay Jed Jed Jad;soD lad;sop Jed J961.18ssed BuimadO anuanay xagaJed anuanay anuanay s.ia6uassed J361.18ssed Ja6u2ssed 900Z `0£• aunt o; 500Z'7" .flat-- a.mpol-.ieaA saiaspejs ame[uaoped I(aua6n lisueu Aapen epaan oied memnom aavueS Ir 'S soi,75:11e45 aoueuzagpad -- 90/500ZAi • • FY1005/06 -- Performance Statistics S.P. Service Provider: RCTC Commuter Rail Performance Statistics for Year -To -Date -- July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 Level Item Revenue Passengers Hours Operating Costs Passenger Passenger Passengers Revenue Revenue Farebox Passenger Per Cost Per Cost Per Per Per Rev. Recovery Revenue Rev. Hr. Passenger Rev. Hr. Passenger Hr. Ratio Route #: RCiC-91 531,930 13,268.0 $4,479,000 $3,023,466 40.1 $8.42 $337.58 $5.68 $227.88 67.50% RCiC-1E0C 1,066,541 28,400.0 $11,145,804 $5,324,826 37.6 $10.45 $392.46 $4.99 $167.49 47.77% RCfC-UPRIv 1,101,646 19,974.0 $12,651,696 $5,701,323 55.2 $11.48 $633.41 $5.18 $265.44 45.06% S.P. Total: 2,700,117 61,642.0 $28,276,500 $14,049,615 43.8 $10,47 $458.72 $5.20 $227.92 49.68% TransTrackManager"' 10/2/7006 Page 6 or10 Oiloz aged %6Z'9 %S9'E %98'6T %LO'9T %60'ST %6E'6 %b9'ET %TS'8T %L6'6T %SZ'6 %SWOT %TETI %o90'trT %6b'ZT %68'bZ %ZL'S %E9'6 %86'ST %OE6Z %18'bT %IL'£S %8L'9 %8L'LT %a-9Z %SK %Lb'LI %LS' TZ %Eta %6E'6T %TS'££ OZ'ES S9'I$ 40'0T$ ZS'8$ 99'L$ L814 0E13 bE'sT$ SS'9T$ LT14 01'ES bE'ST$ S9'TT$ E0'9$ ZZ'KS L£'b$ 65'b$ bZ'ET$ SZ'bZ$ LZ'ZT$ 9E'TIS Z9'S$ bL'bT$ 9L'TZ$ 90'6$ 81,173 L8'LT $ 691,3 LO'9T$ LL'LZ$ L6 909UZ/0I „saileueNipetlsuev1 69'DS ECM TOTE$ 9'4 ---- L9E'TT$ -- 081'083 •---S•SSS'E 06E'9T SE-V121 WO SL'OS$ 0£'TZ$ b'Z 8£8'61$ 8bI'£17S$ O'EOL'OT E6VEZ EE1121 06'0$ SS'OS$ b5'17$ T'IT 106'60 ELVTO£$ 171796'S S9£'99 ZE-V111 06'0$ £S'0S$ LS'S$ T'6 86S'09$ b98'9LE$ E'8S4'L 0T9'L9 TE-V121 Z6'0$ St OS$ ET'9$ €'9 E06'£9$ ETE'£Zb$ 9117E1? £60'69 0E-V121 Z6'0$ sell$ T8'6$ E'S SZ9'9S$ 991,'Z09$ T'6T9'TT 904'T9 E-Vl8 £6'0$ tr8'Z8$ 8L'9$ Z'ZT E9b'OTT$ 909'608$ b'ELL'6 14E'64T 6Z-V121 6610$ b878$ S£'S$ S'ST 859'L9E$ 8S6'586'1$ 67L6'EZ 94E'TLQ [mum m 68'D$ b8'Z8$ Lb'b$ S'8T 609'b9T$ T£0$28$ W9126'6 6Sb'48T sZ-V111 b01$ ES'OS$ 9Z1T6 S'a 0T0'bb$ ZOL'SLb$ 044'6 EEZ'Zb 4Z-V121 ' 86'0$ ES'OS$ £L'6$ Z'S SZO'S9$ TEL'bb9$ 0'6SL'ZT Z9Z'99 WW1 T6'0$ H aat Z617$ 949T KS'96Z$ 8TZ'T09'I$ 9.6ZE'6T za/sZE ZZ-11111 S6'OS 98786 8L'9$ Z'ZT T9L'OZT$ E19'868$ 529E'DT f49'9ZI TZ-V121 80'T$ 9Z'817$ b8'TT$ T1, E0514$ 8bZ'ZEE$ 0'688'9 990'8Z 80Z-Vlli LL'I$ OrLS$ ZI'L$ 0'9 9L£'ZS$ L9E'OTZ$ 01,99'E TES'6Z 90Z-V121 TT' T$ E2'9L$ £E'6T$ 6'E b££'LZ$176Z'LLb$ D'T9Z'9 L891bZ bOZ-1121 IE'T$ S9'Lb$ 9s'EI$ S•E S60'0Z$ TLS'80Z$ S'LLE'b b8E'ST ZOZ•V18 L8'0$ 0878$ £b'S$ Z'ST 9E9'90Z$ T65'Z6Z'T$ T'IT9'ST 968'L£Z a-V121 ZO'T$ Ee711$ Lb'£$ 8'EZ Z99'TSE$ 8EZ'TOZ'T$ 070s$T £S8'SbE 6T-V18 901$ b878$ ZE'L$ E'TT TTZ'HT$ ST2'8E8$ 0'6TT'0T 8ZS'bTT V8T-V121 66'0$ E878$ trZ'L$ VII T80'ZTTS 6bE'LT8$ Z'L98'6 ZZ8'ZTT 8T•V121 68'0$ b878$ iprET$ £49 L9L'TS$ STZ'E93 67IZ'6 , L60'85 LT-V121 1,6'0$ b978$ 6rs$ L'sT bLZ$LS$ 0Z8'ZZZ'E$ 5706'8E 5L1'609 39Ii9T-V111 00'1$ 0978$ 08'E$ 8'TZ • 91WTi4$ 068'598'1$ EtT6'8T , ZZO'ZTb ST-V111 09'0$ b0149$ Z9'S$ 4'TT 666'68$ SL6'EZb$ E'0Z9'9 9Tb$L 6i44V18 46.0$ 4879$ 8E'S$ b'ST Z60'LK$ E4b'Tb8$ L'LST'OT 8L£'9ST bT-V121 56'0$ Z878$ 0414 8'8T ST9'6sZ$ 6S£'EOZ'I$ 0'6ZS'17T 8L9'£LZ ET1l21 E6'0$ 5878$ KffS$ 8'ST E0T'0ZZ$ 6i7zIK'T$ VZ86'0T TZO'LEZ ZT-Vlll 001$ 9878$ 4T'S$ T9T L08'ttz$ E80'Z9Z'T$ 9'TEZ'ST SZ9'sw 0T-V121 90'T$ L879$ 9T'ES E'9Z b60145'3 E4L'L09'4 £109'SS ZE9'650'T T-V121 :# alnoa. opea aH aa6uessed Lionooaa 'nab aad aad . xogand anuanaa anuanali aa6uessed aa6uassed aH •nab aad;sop aa6uassed •aH'na11 onuanali saso3 sanoH saaBuassed aad;so') aad aasuassed 6ugeaado onuaeas saa6uassed wa;I lanai 900Z 10£ aunt al 500Z `T Aim -- awa-of-JeaA Jot sy4s.7e4S aouewaoilad Azue6V;isueal appaenia LiaPenoad aalmeS 'd'S sogsgejs a2ueumopad -- 90/500ZAd • • _ 900 / T OIlo g aped ,,,aa6eueN 44.7eusuell Volt6 9L'9$ 997$ LT'69$ - 9Z'6Z$ " b'Z Si4Z$--- -- 890'LZ$ E=T6E SZ6-- -_ avei-Nli! %£b'Et O9'8$ EO'£$ 50'49$ 9S'ZZ$ 8'Z SSZ'£$ 0£Z17Z$ EVE t,L0'T nrixel-Nall VoTT'IT Sta 00'£$ £L'69$ TO'LZ$ 9'Z £b8'L$ £LS'OL$ T'ZIO'T £T9'Z aHlxel-V121 %£S'8 b0'9$ WE'S 8L'OL$ LS'6£$ 9'T OTra ZEL'bZ$ 1/'64£ SZ9 ,IDVelVla %9L'OT 46'3 987$ ZL'EL$ 8S'93 87 T99$ 6ET'9$ E'ES T£Z EDP(el-Vla VoS£'8 Z8'9$ SZ'E$ E9'T61 1Z'6£$ T'Z 9ZZ'T$ 99914$ L'6LT 1,LE sexel-via %LE'S E6'E$ 8£7$ 88'90$ Sb'8Z$ 91 9b9'6Z$ ISO$S£$ CZSS'L »t/ZI ID unS-Vla %80'8 S8'E$ TVZ$ LS'Lb$ 08'6Z$ 91 LSO'£6$ LZ9'OST`T$ £'88T17Z, 17T9'8£ avard-via %04'8 86'E$ 6b'Z$ bE'Lb$ LS'6Z$ 9'T 9TS'614 Z6L'88S$ VTIEVZT bT6'6T glLad-Vla %L9'6 8b14 • bLZ$ 0£'917$ SE-9Z$ 9'1 Z8L'8E$ £S9'000 01,S9'8 0£11,T CO/ON-V111 'YOWL L4T$ S07$ 00'L14 TS'LZ$ L'T £T9'L9$ 60T'916$ 676b'6T 9b6'Z£ aVOnW-Vla , %95'L 09'£$ L£'Z$ 9S'Lb$ 8E'T£$ 5'I 9£4'Ib$ 699'LbS$ T'9TS'TT SST/LT 2ivaAnW-vla . %98'9 4Z'E$ ZITS TT'Lb$ 917'TE$ 5'T S86'SZ$ 884`LL£$ £'£T0'8 000'ZT 13a51e1-V121 %80'8 SCES 5b'Z$ TL'914 ££'0E$ S'T 88E43 060`483 4'T46'£ OL0'9 edrunt-V1a Vo4I'9 Z9'T$ TL'O$ LS'6Z$ LS'IT$ 97 60Z`Z$ EZ6'SE$ L'4TZ'T SOT'E SC-Vla %LE'6 EE'b$ 947$ 6T'90$ 0r9Z$ S I LO£1,0T$ OEL'ZT11$ 0'690'11Z ZLb'Z4 ]aW$11-Vl11 %SVC Sta$ b£'Z$ 6Z'8b$ OM'S 5'T 69T'L$ 40Z'OOT$ O'SLO'Z b90'£ ava lD-V.ia %b£'L Zb'£$ 567$ SS'96$ 9V017$ Z'I 99£$ 09614 O'LOI bZT IeD-Vla %£17'8 6b'£$ S97$ 9£114 £b'TE$ £'T 9EZ$ L6L'Z$ 9'8 68 ea8/e9-V111 %OT'6T L9'6$ 001$ S9'OS$ bZ'S$ L'6 8ZS'bL$ EST'06E$ Fa:JCL bIS`bL 8-1f121 Vo9Z'9 EL'b$ T6'0$ OVSL$ LS.173 Z'S 9br£E$ 6I£'0£S$ T'££0'L 6Ob'9E 6L-Vla %TB'S 8L'9$ 46'0$ 46'94$ WOT$ Z'L LZL'£b$ 6Z0'9617$ 8'94b'9 4.ZE'91, 4L-Vla %ZE'ZZ TVTT$ £6'0$ S9'0S$ ST'b$ ZZT ZZI`S8$ 69Z'T8E$ 8'LZS'L MI6 01.111 %EE'E t'S'Z$ LL'0$ OZ'9L$ 9T'£Z$ Et £68'9$ Z99'90Z$ _ OZTL'Z SZ6'8 T9 Vla %9T'06 ZB'S4$ ST'b$ IB'OS$ 09'4$ 0'IT LZ9'ZST$ SEZ'69T$ O'IE£'E 508'9£ 05-Vl11 %LT'9Z 891Z$ E6'O$ EB'Z8$ bS'£$ b'EZ 0bb1b£Z$ SIL'S68$ 8'£T9'0T 089'ZSZ 6b Vla %6917 8E'Z$ S9'0$ SL'OS$ £6'£T$ 9'£ L£6'8$ SEZ'06T$ S'OL'£ 6S9'ET Zb-Vla %8T7T 61'9$ 1,01$ 8L'OS$ 9S'8$ 6'S E99'SZ$ £b5.'OTZ$ Z'91PT'4 00917Z Tb-Vla %££'6 bL'b$ TO'T$ LL'OS$ MOTS L'b S8eZE$ b88'SbE$ Z'Z18'9 LE6'TE ObVla 7080'9 60'£$ b0'I$ LL'OS$ TO'LT$ 0'£ SE9'8T$ ZLb'60E$ L'S60'9 b6T'8I 8£-V111 %bb'£ . L9'3 OL'0$ b51144 LZ'On b'Z £L8'6$ 498'98Z$ E'606'S SSVOI,. 9£-V121 omits •aH aa6uassed •JH •naa aaBuassed •aH •nab enuanab stee3 sanoH s elluessed won lanai A4anooaa 'nab aad aad aad MO aad ;sop aad ua6uassed Bul;eaed0 enuanaa xogaaej enuenab anuanaa saa6uessed aaeuassed JeBuessed 900Z10£ aunt' 04 SOOZ'i Apr -- a;ea-of-aeaA -10j sO/Men 0.2uEUIJOPad Icua6y vsueal apisaania uspinoad aolnaag 'd ;S soljs eJs anieumoped -- 90/500Z 66 or Jo 6 abed 9ooz2/oT wia6ausw aneg1suati °I°Lb'LT 98'11$ 00'1$ 99'L9$ L6'S$ b'TT - Z66'00T'L$ 850'689'014 978S'Z09 951'608'9 :POI.d'S %ST'6 £Z'9$ TB'Z$ 01'89$ OL'0£$ ZZ LZ£'Z$ ZZb'SZ$ E'£L£ 9Z9 OSlxel-Vlil %L6'6 S9.9$ £67$ L9'99S 8£'6Z$ £'Z LLo$T$ T9T'TK$ £'LTT'Z SO86 drxel-Va . 0h01:-'9 8L'17$ £9't$ En -CS OZ'bb$ L'T L06'E$ £b0'19$ 6'9T8 T8£'T edlxel-Vla %£b'OT 98'9$ 96'Z$ 69'59$ L£'8Z$ £'Z 6404 LZ8'b14 17799 0851 ONixel-V111 9680.6 88.88 Z8'Z$ 10'19$ TO'T£$ 07 80£'S$ 568`98$ . 0'686 6681 AWlxel-tllb %85'6 60.9$ 187$ SL'L9$ ££'6Z$ £'Z S8T`9$' 195'09$ 6756 TOZ'Z nwpcel-m open •JR aaBuassed •aH •naa aa6uessed •aH •nab enuenaa swop &moil va6uassed wa;I 13A39 AGanoaaa •naa gad Jed Jed;sop Jed;soD gad Ja6uassed 6ul4eJed0 anuanaa xogaaed anuanea anuanaa siaBuassed asBuessed Ja6uassed 900Z 10E aun! 0.7 500Z 'T APT -- aleQ-of-,yeaA ao,/ sopsi EIS awewaoPed ,(auafiv usueal appianla :aepino.ld a3IAJeg d'S sN-757-7e7,5 auueuiaoped -- 90/500Z • • Or Jo Or aged 90o�7c zl0t a„ 1E4016 4 ijoellsued1 %OnI %88'9 %66'6 %L6'bT % T'8i %ZZ'ST %LE7 %9E'9 %00'8 %80'9£ %OZ'ZI %LS'Lt %SCSI %R IZ 6T'9T$ 9Z'5$ 6011$ 95'9T$ m'aZ$ T6.93 Z979 SO'L$ 88'8$ £5'8E$ TS'£T$ 59'6t$ TS'LI$ 95'£Z$ O8'09 6S'Z$ SL'0$ SC0 U.0$ 9L'0$ 8L'0$ SL'0$' 9L'0$ 9L'0$ 9(0$ eta 9L'0$ 9C0$ Ob'ZOT$ 6E93 68'0T1$ ZL'OTT$ S9'0TT$ 801719 9Z'0TT$ SCOTTS 96'0Tt$ 6L'90I$ £L'OTT$ 29Trr$ E60t1$ LL'OTT $ LO'S$ 69'LE$ bS'L$ EO'S$ LT'b$ 00'S$ 087E9 6973 TS'6$ OT'.Z$ OZ'9$ Tb•b$ 08'0 LS'E$ Z'O2 S90'058'Z$ 8L1'8Z0'Bi$ L150'9a LT£`855'£ OZ £SS'LIZ$ 00Z'b9t'E$ 8'EZ4'ib 956'£8 tiva-NnS L'bi SbS'8L$ EZ9'S8L$ 8'110'L 69I170T T6-NnS O'ZZ Z88'S67$ 688'L0E'T$ O'Et8'tt L68`6SZ 06-Nr7S 9.9Z bZ9'E£Z$ SWEI8Z'T$ Z'£779'TT 987'60E 08-NnS Z'Z2 I176'E6$ T80'LI9$ E'SSS'S b9£'EZI OL-Nns b'£ 6L8'13 90E'6617$ b'82S'b ZZZ'ST . Ts-0s V6 /59`ZL$ ZS9'01iT't$ 6'00E'OT EZE'96 05-Nns ['TT L6E'Z£$ b061,04$ T'fi4,9'E 9SS14 TE-MIS 6'05 LZ5'68b$ 8ZL'9S£'1$ O'SOL'ZT 6Z6'9179 OE-Nns 6'LI bbb'ZL$ ZOL'E6S$ L'I9£`S 81L'S6 R-NnS £'SZ VICK$ 9E910 CIEL I175'8T EZ•NnS T'£Z LLZ'LO£$ E94'9b61$ S'L45`LI 9bE'SOb 4T-WIS T'T£ LS9'6Z0'T$ 6i'Vtb817$ Z'LOL`£b OTT'LS£'T TTT•Nns :1E401 'd'S :# aina oneb •aH aa6uassed •5}I •naa aa6uassed wH •nab anuenaa s7ee0 sanoH 52e6118ssed wen leAel i(aanooab •nab aad Jed Jed;so0 Jed 4e00 Jed aa6uessed 6eReaed0 onuenab xogaaed anuanab anuanab saa6uassed JeBuessed aa6uessed 900Z '0£ aunt o SOOZ 't .f/n£ -- a;ea-of-je9A ao'sopsge4S aoueruwopad Aaue6d41suea1 aunung :aaMmud aolnaag d'S sons:gels wuetuao_rad -- 90/500Z Ad ransit Operator CO 0 0 0 0 N Performance Statistics Report a. 0. 0 cn m ro to u 0 a) o 0 L 0. on) "a" lii &I cn c as it CD 0 T CI r RCM's Role in transit • Planning (AB 1246 - PUC 13030c) • Funding (PUC 130250-130306) • Operator Oversight/Fiduciary Responsibility -Annual Fiscal Audit -Triennial Performance Audit -Annually review transit operators' activities....and: recommend potential productivity improvements to lower operating costs (PUC 99244) Annual Review of Transit. Operators' Activities Planning: SRTPs (Identifies Operating & Capital Needs) Monitor & locate Funding — Report Performance nnuaw Based on SRTPs Data Comparison Systemwide Data FY 2004105 FY 2005106 (Actual Data) (Preliminary Data) Percentage Change Ridership $ 14,067,039 $ 13,816,884 •178°l0 Operating Expenses $ 85,067,855 $ 94,098,794 10.62% Passenger Fares $ 22,755,506 $ 24,771,296 8.86% $100, 000, 000 $90, 000, 000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 FY 2000/01 (Actual) SUMMARY Riverside County Systemwide Ridership, Passenger Fares & Operating Expenses FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Actual) REmi Operating Expenses Passenger Fares —,k—Ridership FY 2005/06 (Preliminary) 16,000,000 15,600,000 15,200,000 14, 800, 000 14, 400, 000 14,000,000 13, 600, 000 13,200,000 12,800,000 12, 400, 000 12,000,000 FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001 /02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Actual) FY 2005/06 (Preliminary) Operating Expenses $ 64,664,218 $ 68,528,817 $ 74,283,099 $ 79,958,254 $ 85,067,855 $ 94,098,794 Passenger Fares $ 16,801,860 $ 17,715,747 $ 20,015,834 $ 21,439,494 $ 22,755,506 $ 24,771,296 Ridership 13,118,470 13,497,981 13,628,071 14,351,894 14,067,039 13,816,884 FY 2005/06 Ridership Increase in One -Way Agency FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 Trips % Increase City of Beaumont 118,212 118,618 406 0.34% Commuter Rail 2,541,574 2,700,117 158,543 6.24% Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 43,173 51,071 7,898 18.29% SunLine Transit Agency 3,422,879 3,558,317 135,438 3.96% Decrease in One -Way Agency FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 Trips % Decrease City of Banning 201,964 189,139 12,825 6.35% City of Corona 228,904 205,233 23,671 10.34% City of Riverside 152,752 145,223 7,529 4.93% Riverside Transit Agency 7,357,581 6,849,166 508,415 6.91 % Triennial Performance Audits • FY 2001 — FY 2003: — Operating Costs Increase 26% and 110% — Ridership 3% decrease 100% increase Comprehensive Operational Analysis: - SunLine's (Complete) - RTA's (In Process) Strategic Assessment: - Metrolink (®raft 10/06) • FY 2004 — FY 2006 audit will provide a full analysis of: — Operating Costs — Ridership Fare Box Productivity Improvement Program (PIP • Aid to Transit Operators in Determining Cost Efficiency • Mandatory Targets: — Operating Cost per Revenue Hour (tied to CPI) — Fare Box Recovery Ratio • Discretionary Targets +l- 15% Variance: — Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour — Subsidy per Revenue Mile — Passengers per Revenue Hour — Passengers per Revenue Mile — Ridership Growth: 2% (Rail) — Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Mile: 30 (Rail) seg igisuodsaa Tui6pano si.i q�inn uops!wwoo }sissy IHAA . suoppep aim Ianpv pui 6uNew spaaoq 6upeno6 pua saoiaaado �isuaa� lsissa IIIM • spode.' saiaaaua6 pua salaingai `sepdwoo . Aouaba aiaLIT way..'lap indui snleJedo . waaboad pasaq-qem . Riverside County FY2005/06 Performance Statistics July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 Passengers Revenue Hours Operating Costs Passenger Revenue Passengers Cost Per Cost Per Per Rev. Hr. Passenger Rev. Hr. Passenger Passenger Farebox Revenue Per Revenue Per Recovery Passenger Rev. Hr. Ratio City of Banning 189,139 14,714.2 $1,063,991 $119,797 12.9 $5.63 $72.31 $0.63 $8.14 11.25% City of Beaumont 118,618 18,346.6 $1,027,114 $70,988 6.5 $8.66 $55.98 $0.60 $3.87 6.91% City of Corona 205,233 32,428.1 $1,634,823 $224,384 6.3 $7.97 $50.41 $1.09 $6.92 13.72% City of Riverside 145,223 36,737.9 $2,430,153 $235,601 4.0 $16.73 $66.15 $1.62 $6.41 9.69°% PWfA 51,071 11,097.5 $748,977 $75,854 4.6 $14.67 $67.49 $1.49 $6.84 10.12% RCTC Commuter Rail 2,700,117 61,642.0 $28,276,500 $14,049,615 43.8 $10.47 $458.72 $5.20 $227.92 49.68% RTA 6,849,166 602,582.6 $40,889,058 $7,144,992 11.4 $5.97 $67.86 $1.04 $11.86 17.47°% SunLine Transit 3,558,317 176,051.7 $18,028,178 $2,850,065 20.2 $5.07 $102.40 $0.80 $16.19 15.80% System Total 13,816,884 953,600.5 $94,098,794 $24,771,297 14.5 $6.81 $98.68 $1.79 $25.98 26.32% PIP: Next Steps • Analyze Results: First Six Months of PIP — Reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity will remain with transit operators and their governing boards — January/February 2007: status report on PIP compliance • Actual data comparison to approved PIP targets PIP Analysis • Transit operator will identify whether it is in compliance with PIP — Cases of Non -Compliance • Meeting scheduled with transit operator to jointly develop action plan to meet PIP targets • Agreed upon action plan, together with transit operator's performance report, will be presented to Commission • Approved action plan/methodology to come into compliance with the PIP will be included as part of following fiscal year Short Range Transit Plan Create a Vision of Trap; Service • Commission directed staff to develop conceptual plans • Currently: 79 projects identified as the foundation for developing the transit vision • Goal: present a consensus plan ....however, projects exceeded revenue Transit Vision/Conceptual Pla • Financially unconstrained plans presented to Transit Policy Committee — Staff directed to • Review conceptual plans with an emphasis on identifying: — Performance measures with a focus on improving mobility — Non -Measure A and TDA funds that can be leveraged — Coordinated transit needs Transit Visioning Process • Facilitator assisting with planning process • The Transit Plan is for FY 2009 - 2019 • Six meetings held focusing on transit services Goal. • Develop consensus plan — Focus on » Existing service »Congestion » Connectivity Transit Visioning Process • City of Banning • City of 'eaumont • City of Corona • City of Riverside • Palo Verde Valley Transit • RCTC's Commuter Rail • Riverside Transit Agency • SunLine Transit Agency Participation from all public transit agencies in county Participation from RCTC's programmatic areas: Commuter Assistance & Specialized Transit Programs Transit Vision: Next Steps 4 Present preliminary findings October 19, 2006 Transit Policy Committee .ssaooad 6uiuoisin �isuaal pua `Aouepw.3 isoo 6u!quaaai.ap ui pid ua se uaaaboad wawanoadwi ApRonpoad jo a�o� `.Joda� soRsReis aouemopad aoi.aaadp �isuaal . E . Z . I- : uonewasexl pua aniaoaH uop.epuauauaooaIleTs ,rheMtGroiv�Hill [ompantes STANDARD &POOR'S September 26, 2006 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director One Market Steuart Tower,15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105.1000 tel 415 371-5004 reference no.: 40068499 0 EcEtivE5 ou 10 2006 TRANSPORTATION Re: Riverside County Transportation Commission, California, Sales 'Tax Revenue Bonds Dear Mr. Haley: Standard & Poor's has reviewed the rating on the above -referenced obligations. After such review, we have changed the rating to "AA+" from "AA" while affirming the stable outlook. A copy of the rationale supporting the rating and outlook is enclosed. The rating is not investment, financial, or other advice and you should not and cannot rely upon the rating as such. The rating is based on information supplied to us by you or by your agents but does not represent an audit. We undertake no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information. The assignment of a rating does not create a fiduciary relationship between us and you or between us and other recipients of the rating. We have not consented to and will not consent to being named an "expert" under the applicable securities laws, including without limitation, Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933. The rating is not a "market rating" nor is it a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell the obligations. This letter constitutes Standard & Poor's permission to you to disseminate the above -assigned rating to interested parties. Standard & Poor's reserves the right to inform its own clients, subscribers, and the public of the rating. Standard & Poor's relies on the issuer/obligor and its counsel, accountants, and other experts for the accuracy and completeness of the information submitted in connection with the rating. To maintain the rating, Standard & Poor's must receive all relevant financial information as soon as such information is available. Placing us on a distribution list for this information would facilitate the process. You must promptly notify us of all material changes in the financial information and the documents. Standard & Poor's may change, suspend, withdraw, or place on CreditWatch the rating as a result of changes in, or unavailability of, such information. Standard & Poor's reserves the right to request additional information if necessary to maintain the rating. STANDARD .i'(..X.. �, PUBLIC FINANCE Primary Credit Analysts:_ David 6 Hitchcock New York, (1)212-438-2022 dauid_hitchcock@ standardandpoors.com Secondary Credit Analysts: Richard J Marino New York (1 )212-4382058 richartl• _roarino@ standardandpoors.com Colleen Woodell New York [1)212438 2118 colleen_woodell© stendaidandpoors.com RatingsDirect Publication Date s Sept. 26, 2006. Criteria Change Leads To Some Special Tax Issue Rating Upgrades Rationale Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised its U.S. public finance special tax criteria, including criteria for sales tax, highway user tax, and income tax revenue bonds, leading to rating upgrades on tens of billions of dollars of debt The criteria revision was prompted by a re-examination of the stability of sales, income, and highway user tax revenue streams over previous economic cycles, and the placing of less emphasis on additional parity bonds tests in instances when practical considerations make significant additional parity bonding unlikely. The ratings revisions involved a comprehensive review of all outstanding sales tax, income tax, and highway user tax bonds currently rated by Standard & Poor's, and are effective immediately. Standard & Poor's is refining its special tax criteria as it relates to sales tax, income tax, and highway user tax revenue bonds to place greater emphasis on fundamental economic factors and less on legal features regarding additional debt issuance and reserve funds when, from a practical perspective, prospects are good that debt service coverage will remain high regardless of the legal provisions in bond covenants. Enhanced recognition of fundamental economic activity for sales tax and income tax revenue bonds is supported by retail sales and personal income data collected over past recessions, which has generally reaffirmed the stability of sales and income tax revenues during adverse economic cycles, particularly for large economic bases. As such, higher rating levels can be sustained at lower coverage levels for certain municipalities. Likewise, the stability of fuel sales during recent and previous price spikes shows that fuel demand is relatively inelastic —even during periods of high fuel prices. Highway user tax ratings are also buoyed by the fact that a large portion of pledged revenues are typically derived from stable transportation -related sources, such as motor vehicleregistration fees and motor vehicle license fees, and usually cover a large statewide population base. Criteria Change Leads To Some Special Tax Issue Rating Upgrades To AAA' Legal tests for additional sales tax parity debt will now be weighed less heavily where municipalities rely on excess sales tax revenues to fund general fund operations. In such cases there is a disincentive to issue significant amounts of additional sales tax borrowing, regardless of legal protections. For these issuers, heavy sales tax bonding could have the effect of crowding out funding for essential continuing municipal operations. Analytically, this unlikelihood allows us to place less emphasis on the additional bonds test. The additional bonds test is also less significant for municipal issuers with a long history of debt restraint and little potential . future financing needs. In contrast, additional bonds tests may retain their traditional importance when an authorized sales tax is dedicated only to capital funding or when capital needs are laze. Debt service reserves also take on less importance in cases where debt service coverage will be maintained at very high levels, such as 2x maximum annual debt service or higher. In these cases, debt service reserves equal to half of maximum annual debt service and ones only funded when coverage falls below a specified level, or in some cases not funded at all, may be sufficient. Standard & Poor's I ANALYSIS Published by Standard & Poor's. a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Executive offices: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Editorial offices: 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. Subscriber services: M 212-438-7280. Copyright2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. Information has been obtained by Standard & Poor's from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error by our sources, Standard & Poor's or others, Standard & Poor's does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or the result obtained from the use of such information. Ratings are statements of opinion, not statements of fact or recommendations to buy, hold, or sell any securities. Standard & Poor's uses billing and contact data collected from subscribers for billing and order fulfillment purposes, and occasionally to inform subscribers about products or services from Standard & Poor's, our parent, The McGraw-Hill Companies, and reputable third parties that may be of interest to them. All subscriber billing and contact data collected is stored in a secure database in the U.S. and access is limited to authorized persons. If you would prefer not to have your information used as outlined in this notice, if you wish to review your information for accuracy, or for more information on our privacy practices, please call us at (11212-438-7280 or write us at: privacy®standardandpoors.com. For more information about The McGraw-Hill Companies Privacy Policy please visit www.mcgraw-hill.com/privacy.html. Analytic services provided by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services ('Ratings Services') are the result of separate activities designed to preserve the independence and objectivity of ratings opinions. Credit ratings issued by Ratings Services are solely statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or make any other investment decisions. Aecordingly, any user of credit ratings issued by Ratings Services should not rely on any such ratings or other opinion issued by Ratings Services in making any investment decision. Ratings are based on information received by RatingsServices. Other divisions of Standard & Poor's may have irdormatidn that is not available to Ratings Services. Standard & Poor's has established policies and procedures to • maintain the confidentiality of non-public information received during the ratings process. Ratings Services receives compensation for its ratings: Such compensation is normally paid either by the issuers of such securities or by the underwriters participating in the distribution thereof. The fees generally vary from US$2,000 to over US$1,500,000. While Standard & Poor's reserves the right to disseminate the rating, it receives no payment for doing so, except for subscriptions to its publications. Permissions: To reprint, translate, or quote Standard & Poor's publications, contact: Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-9823; or by e-mail to: research_request@standardandpoors.com. Tire McGraw-Hill Companies