Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
05 May 11, 2016 Commission
NM Mom Riverside County Trargoriatian {nmmission MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, May 11, 2016 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside drW, COMMISSIONERS eet Chair — Scott Matas Vice Chair — John F. Tavaglione Second Vice Chair — Dana Reed COMM-COMM-00057 Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Chuck Washington, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Deborah Franklin / Art Welch, City of Banning Lloyd White / Mike Lara, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Tim Wade, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Joyce McIntire, City of Calimesa Dawn Haggerty / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Shelley Kaplan, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / To Be Appointed, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Randy Fox, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Paul Raver, City of Hemet Dana Reed / Douglas Hanson, City of Indian Wells Michael Wilson / Glenn Miller, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Brian Berkson, City of Jurupa Valley Robert Radi / To Be Appointed, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann / John Denver, City of Menifee Yxstian Gutierrez / Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Jonathan Ingram, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Geoffrey Kors, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / To Be Appointed, City of Rancho Mirage Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / To Be Appointed, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / Michael McCracken, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar John Bulinski, Director, Governor's Appointee Caltrans District 8 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board DATE: May 4, 2016 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest — Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of May 11, 2016 The May 11, 2016 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 88 — Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2016/17 Consultant(s): Best Best and Krieger, LLP Steven DeBaun, Partner 3390 University Avenue, 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation George Nomura, Project Manager 3850 Vine Street, Suite 210 Riverside, CA 92507 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Holly Rockwell, President 3951 Vine Street Riverside, CA 92507 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Mary A. Collins, Partner 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, Inc. Daniel L. Wiles, Principal 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92612 TransTrack Systems, Inc. Mary Sue O'Melia, President 265 Belmont Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Victor Hsu, Partner 555 S. Flower Street, 41s` Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 TSC2 Group Tom R. Skancke, CEO 2620 Regatta Drive, # 102 Las Vegas, NV 89128 RCTC Potential Conflicts of Interest May 4, 2016 Page 2 AMMA Transit Planning Heather Menninger, Principal/Owner 393 Two Trees Road Riverside, CA 92057 ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation Jeff Sprosty, Branch Manager 1601 S. Sunkist Street, Suite E Anaheim, CA 92806 lteris, Inc. Dan Gilliam Vice President Contracts 1700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100 Santa Ana, CA 92705 BLX Group, LLC Rob Robertson Director -Financial Planning/Compliance 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Agenda Item No. 8C — Agreement for Audit Services for Transportation Development Act Claimants Consultant(s): BCA Watson Rice, LLP Michael de Castro, Managing Partner 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 150 Torrance, CA 90503 Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP Peter S. George, Partner 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 600 New Port Beach, CA 92660 Conrad LLP Sam Perera, Partner 23702 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 Crown Castle/Sunesys John A. Timney, Vice President 185 Titus Avenue Warrington, PA 18976 Trillium Solutions, Inc. Thomas Craig Operations Manager 6106 NE Mallory Avenue Portland, OR 97211 U.S. Bank -Corporate Trust Services Ashraf Almurdaaw, Vice President 633 W 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Connected Consulting Marnie O'Brien Primmer, CEO 5020 Campus Drive PMB 806 Newport Beach, CA 92660 the Measure A Recipients and RCTC Potential Conflicts of Interest May 4, 2016 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 8F — Agreements for On -Call Painting Services for the Commuter Rail Stations and Riverside Downtown Operations Control Center Consultant(s): Interlog Corporation dba Interlog Construction Justin Kwon, President 1295 N. Knollwood Circle Anaheim, CA 92801 U.S. National Corp. Mary Martinez, Operations Manager 14416 Chase Street, Suite 4929 Panorama City, CA 91412 Agenda Item No. 8G — Agreement for Elevator Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair Services Consultant(s): Pacific Coast Elevator dba Amtech Elevator Services Daniel Buttrey, Manager 1550 South Sunkist Street, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:10 PM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: May Commission Agenda - 05.11.2016 Importance: High Good afternoon Commissioners: The May Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 11, 2016 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/mav-11-2016-1.original.pdf Conflict of Conflict of [nterest Memo.pdf Interest Form.pdf Also, attached for your review and information is the conflict of interest memo and form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara S. (Byercy Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:13 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC: May Commission Agenda - 05.11.2016 Importance: High Good afternoon Commission Alternates: The May Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 11, 2016 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/may-11-2016-1.original.pdf Respectfully, Tara S. (Byerty Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951)787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, May 11, 2016 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —APRIL 13, 2016 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 11, 2016 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget; and 2) Open the public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2016/17 Budget on May 11 and on June 8, 2016, and thereafter close the public hearing. 7. 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 Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8. 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. 8A. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 21 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2016. 8B. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 23 1) Approve the recurring contracts for Fiscal Year 2016/17; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 11, 2016 Page 3 8C. AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE MEASURE A RECIPIENTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMANTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 32 1) Award Agreement No. 16-19-055-00 to Conrad LLP (Conrad) for the provision of audit services for the Eastern Riverside County (Eastern County) Measure A local streets and roads recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $274,225, plus a contingency amount of $27,775, for a total amount not to exceed $302,000; 2) Award Agreement No. 16-19-089-00 to Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP (MGO) for the provision of audit services for the Western Riverside County (Western County) Measure A local streets and roads recipients and TDA claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $641,490, plus a contingency amount of $64,510, for a total amount not to exceed $706,000; 3) Award Agreement No. 16-19-090-00 to BCA Watson Rice LLP (BCAWR) for the provision of audit services for the Western County Measure A specialized transit recipients for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $235,140, plus a contingency amount of $23,860, for a total amount not to exceed $259,000; 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services. 8D. EXPRESS LANES PRIVACY POLICY Page 55 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution 16-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Express Lanes Privacy Policy" Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 11, 2016 Page 4 8E. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT Page 61 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No 16-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion Project and Approving the Project"; and 2) Approve the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 8F. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL PAINTING SERVICES FOR THE COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS AND RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 69 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call painting services for a three-year term, and two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $1.2 million, plus a contingency amount of $150,000, for a total amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1,350,000; a) Agreement No. 16-24-013-00 with Interlog Corporation dba Interlog Construction; and b) Agreement No. 16-24-076-00 with U.S. National Corp. dba Jimenez Painting Company; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 11, 2016 Page 5 8G. AGREEMENT FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REPAIR SERVICES Page 91 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-060-00 to Pacific Coast Elevator dba Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech) for the provision of elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services for a three-year term, and two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $550,000, plus a contingency amount of $55,000, for a total amount not to exceed $605,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to the contractor under the terms of the agreement; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services. 8H. FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AGREEMENT FOR INLAND EMPIRE RIDESHARE AND 511 SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 113 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-41-088-00 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to reimburse the Commission in an amount not to exceed $1.5 million for Fiscal Year 2016/17 commuter/employer rideshare and Inland Empire (IE511) programs administered by the Commission, on behalf of both agencies, as part of an ongoing bi-county partnership; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 81. AMENDMENT TO RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 135 1) Approve modification to Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) Fiscal Year 2015/16 operating assistance funding to reflect an additional $460,410 in state Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds to cover anticipated operating expenses related to the Perris Valley Line (PVL); Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 11, 2016 Page 6 2) Reprogram the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating amount of $460,410 originally identified for the PVL operating expenses to capital funding to support the development of RTA's central operations and maintenance facility; 3) Approve modification to RTA's FY 2015/16 capital program to reflect an additional $911,498 in FY 2014/15 Proposition 1B California Transit Security Grant Program —California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) and $257,009 in Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) program residual amount from the FYs 2008/09 and 2009/10 appropriations; and 4) Approve amendments to RTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the changes outlined above. 8J. AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR RAIL FORECASTING SERVICES FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Page140 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-25-072-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 14-25-072-00, with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for rail forecasting services related to Phase 2 of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan for an additional amount of $4,085,000, and a total amount not to exceed $6,002,095; 2) Approve a budget adjustment for Fiscal Year 2015/16 to increase revenues for a federal grant and expenditures for study costs each in the amount of $300,000; and 3) Authorize the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 9. 2016 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE Page169 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda May 11, 2016 Page 7 10. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on state legislation; and 2) Adopt the following bill position: a) SB 885 (Wolk) — Oppose. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview Page 175 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. 13. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL MAY 11, 2016 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I � ❑ County of Riverside, District II P County of Riverside, District III ❑ County of Riverside, District IV gr O County of Riverside, District V City of Banning 0 O City of Beaumont % ❑ City of Blythe � O City of Calimesa J4A' City of Canyon Lake 0. O City of Cathedral City City of Coachella r� City of Corona ❑ City of Desert Hot Springs O City of Eastvale ❑ City of Hemet O City of Indian Wells ,� City of Indio O City of Jurupa Valley ❑ City of La Quinta O City of Lake Elsinore ❑ City of Menifee O City of Moreno Valley ❑ City of M u rrieta O City of Norco �' ❑ City of Palm Desert O City of Palm Springs ❑ City of Perris ❑ City of Rancho Mirage ❑ City of Riverside Of a o44. a.•cr . City of San Jacinto City of Temecula ❑ City of Wildomar ' Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 J?�'' 0 AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Scott Matas at 9:32 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Tavaglione led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Linda Krupa Rusty Bailey Clint Lorimore Ben Benoit Bob Magee David Bricker Scott Mann Daryl Busch Scott Matas Joseph DeConinck Jesse Molina Ginny Foat Michael Naggar Deborah Franklin Robert Radi Rick Gibbs Dana Reed Dawn Haggerty Karen Spiegel Berwin Hanna John F. Tavaglione Jan Harnik Chuck Washington Steven Hernandez Lloyd White Kevin Jeffries Ted Weill Frank Johnston Michael Wilson Shelley Kaplan Ella Zanowic Andrew Kotyuk* *Arrived after the meeting was called to order John J. Benoit 4. CALIFORNIA RESOURCES BOARD CHOOSES UC RIVERSIDE Commissioner Tavaglione welcomed and introduced Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox, University of California, Riverside (UCR), to discuss the efforts by UCR to have the California Air Resources Board (CARB) relocate its testing facilities to Riverside. Chancellor Wilcox expressed appreciation for Commissioner Tavaglione's introduction and presented the new location for the CARB testing facility at the UCR, highlighting the following areas: • A map depicting the CARB testing facility location at the northeast section of the agricultural land at UCR; • Board of Supervisors, city of Riverside, Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, and UCR, which all collectively contributed to the successful effort to convince CARB to relocate its testing facility to Riverside; • A map depicting the renovation or expansion of other UCR buildings, the plan for the CARB testing facility location, including a transit facility, student health center, and a school of medicine outpatient clinic adjacent Interstate 215; • UCR's research legacy; and • UCR trends — federal research awards: 2012 to 2015, UCR erollment: 1992 to present, and faculty growth: 2013 to 2020. Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk congratulated Chancellor Wilcox as this relocation will boost the local economy for generations to come. Commissioner Tavaglione discussed the Riverside team that presented at the CARB hearing, which included: county of Riverside's Economic Development Director Rob Field; Cindy Roth, Chamber of Commerce; city of Riverside Mayor and Commissioner Rusty Bailey, its economic development team and city manager; Supervisor and Commissioner J. Benoit, who also sits on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD); and Executive Director Anne Mayer. He expressed appreciation for all of the team's efforts and to Chancellor Wilcox for his leadership. Commissioner Bailey expressed appreciation to Senator Richard Roth for all of his efforts in Sacramento to ensure a competitive process for the relocation decision. Chancellor Wilcox expressed this success would not have happened without Senator Roth. Commissioner Tavaglione concurred with Commissioner Bailey and Chancellor Wilcox's comments. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 3 Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to Chancellor Wilcox for all of his efforts. She stated the relocation of the CARB testing facility to UCR will benefit the local economy with high paying jobs. She discussed the Commission's billions of dollars in transportation investments — past, present, and future. She then discussed the opening of the commuter rail station at Hunter Park and its close proximity to the Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT), which will draw more technology - based businesses to the area. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anne Mayer presented Project Delivery Director Marlin Feenstra, Government Relations Manager Aaron Hake, and Capital Projects Manager Edda Rosso with 10-year service awards. Chair Matas noted the Clerk of the Board will electronically distribute the handouts from the public speakers to the Commissioners after the meeting. Brian Tisdale, representing property tenants George and Brenda Willis, discussed the tenants' concerns regarding the Commission's increase in property license fees and requested the Commission revisit its fee schedule. He read the response sent to Commissioner Chuck Washington's office from Anne Mayer dated January 26, 2016, regarding APN 442-120-007, 1125 W. Acacia Avenue, Hemet, CA 92343. Mr. Tisdale also noted he received an email from Chuck Wise, the property owner of the subject property, requesting the Commission revisit its fee schedule. George and Brenda Willis expressed their concerns the Commission's license fee increases are not in line with the property market value. She discussed the purchase price of the property in 2002, how property values are declining due to criminal activity and homelessness, and concern for losing their renters. She stated the property has a flood channel, the railroad, and no access road and is being used for storage. She requested the Commission review the property's market value again and come to an agreeable lease amount for this property. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 28-29 COMMISSION WORKSHOP AND MARCH 9, 2016 M/S/C (Radi/Krupa) to approve the January 28-29, Commission Workshop and March 9, 2016 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Hanna, Lorimore, and Molina Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 4 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Dana Reed recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, "Approval of 71/91 Interchange Utility Agreement and Preliminary Engineering Utility Agreement", recommendation nos. 1d and 2, due to a conflict of interest. M/S/C (Ashley/Johnston) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. 8A. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW 1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy"; and 2) Adopt the revised annual Investment Policy. 8B. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE WEST PORPHYRY OVERHEAD 1) Approve reallocation adjustments to the construction and maintenance (C&M) agreements with BNSF Railway (BNSF) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project): a) Agreement No. 14-31-112-00 East Porphyry Overhead decrease in the amount of $108,460 for a total amount not to exceed $353,861; b) Agreement No. 14-31-113-00, East Prado Overhead decrease in the amount of $286,079 for a total amount not to exceed $721,163; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-115-00, West Prado Overhead decrease in the amount of $85,177 for a total amount not to exceed $780,977; 2) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-114-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with BNSF for extended flagging services for an additional amount of $1 million, increase in the amount of $479,716 from the above reallocation adjustments, and use of $455,894 of contingency, for a total amount not to exceed $6,921,234, resulting in a remaining contingency of $276,240 and total C&M agreements amount not to exceed $9,053,475; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 5 8C. AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE OF 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-72-074-00 with the city of Jurupa Valley for advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funds to advance up to $1,167,000, utilizing funding from the 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) program; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf the Commission. 8D. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF BLYTHE Approve the adjustment to the city of Blythe's (Blythe) 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount to $170,000. 8E. APPROVAL OF 71/91 INTERCHANGE UTILITY AGREEMENTS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING UTILITY AGREEMENT 1) Approve the following agreements for final engineering and construction for utility relocations for the 71/91 interchange project in the amount of $816,435, plus a contingency of $204,109, for a total amount not to exceed $1,020,544: a) Agreement No. 16-31-068-00 with AT&T in an amount not to exceed $18,162; b) Agreement No. 16-31-069-00 with AT&T (Prado) in an amount not to exceed $21,503; c) Agreement No. 16-31-070-00 with the city of Corona in an amount not to exceed $170,175; d) Agreement No. 16-31-071-00 with Southern California Edison (SCE) in an amount not to exceed $528,698; and e) Agreement No. 16-31-072-00 with Sprint in an amount not to exceed $77,897; 2) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-073-00 with Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for preliminary engineering for a utility relocation for the project in the amount of $335,999, plus a contingency amount of $84,000, for a total amount not to exceed $419,999; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for these utility relocation agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 6 Recuse: Reed, Agenda Item 8E, 1d 9. 2016 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION UPDATE Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, provided an update for the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). She stated the adoption of the 2016 STIP is scheduled at the May 18-19 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting and an update will be provided at the next Budget and Implementation Committee and Commission meetings. In response to Commissioner Ted Weill's question if the CTC's reversal on the STIP funds impacts the $2 million set aside for the CV Link project, Shirley Medina replied the CV Link project remains as a STIP-funded project in the 2016 STIP once it becomes adopted. In response to Commissioner Weill's clarification the CV Link project does not require any additional funds from another source, Shirley Medina replied not from the STIP. At Commissioner Washington's request for a list of agencies that did not reduce by their fair share, Shirley Medina stated CTC staff is working with each of the regions to continue to find more reductions and it is uncertain what was actually submitted by each of the regions. Commissioner Washington expressed when that information is received if Anne Mayer is prepared to defend the Commission's position having contributed the Commission's fair share and lobby the CTC's actions. Anne Mayer replied she is ready to do so although staff needs the details. She discussed the formulas of fair share cuts for each county, stating staff needs to evaluate the counties that did not cut any projects and if these counties have projects to cut. Commissioner Michael Naggar expressed appreciation for Commissioner Washington's comments. He then expressed appreciation on behalf of the city of Temecula to Commissioners and staff for their continued diligence on this subject as the I-15/French Valley Parkway interchange project is critical to the south county as it is a health and safety issue. In response to Commissioner Jan Harnik's question about the fair share reduction compliance, Shirley Medina replied CTC staff is still working with all of the regions. She explained the CTC staff's final recommendation will be released prior to the May CTC meeting. Ms. Medina stated staff will evaluate and respond to the list once it is released to ensure the counties took their fair share cut and staff will inform the Commission at the next meeting of the next steps. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 7 In response to Commissioner Dawn Haggerty's question regarding the STIP funds for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street interchange project and if there is a backup plan if the Commission acquires more of its fair share whether it is reinstated, Shirley Medina replied this project was programmed for the right of way phase and is in the environmental phase. She stated it is a Regional Arterial Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) project, which is one of the first funding sources being looked at to replace the STIP funds. Anne Mayer stated it will be staff's recommendation that I-15/Railroad Canyon Road and Franklin Street interchange project remain a priority for funding as funds become available. M/S/C to receive and file the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) update. 10. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake provided an update on transportation funding shortfall, the Legislature's special session, and the Governor's budget proposal. Mr. Hake then presented an update on the state legislative activities, highlighting the following areas: • Sponsored Bills: AB 1780 (Medina), AB 1943 (Linder), and AB 2014 (Melendez); and • Proposed Bill positions: AB 1569 (Steinorth) — Support; SB 1197 (Canella — Support; AB 2783 (E. Garcia) — Support in Concept, Seek Amendments; and SB 901 (Bates) — Support in Concept. At this time, Commissioner Daryl Busch left the meeting. Anne Mayer expressed appreciation as the Assembly Transportation Committee has four Riverside County members on this committee and are all putting forward good bills and working together for the interest of Riverside County. Also, Senator Roth is on the Senate Transportation Committee, which is helpful to the county as well. M/S/C (Spiegel/Krupa) to: 1) Receive and file an update on state legislation; and 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 1569 (Steinorth) — Support; b) SB 1197 (Cannella) — Support; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 8 c) AB 2783 (E. Garcia) — Support in Concept, Seek Amendments; and d) SB 901 (Bates) — Support in Concept. No: Mann 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, clarified he was informed after the vote that Commissioner Kevin Jeffries received a campaign contribution from Edison International. He explained in order to comply with conflict laws, legal counsel asked the Board reconsider the adoption of Agenda Item 8E, "Approval of 71/91 Interchange Utility Agreement and Preliminary Engineering Utility Agreement". He explained following the reconsideration vote, the Board will vote to approve the item, including any recusals. M/S/C (Spiegel/Zanowic) to reconsider Agenda Item 8 E, "Approval of 71/91 Interchange Utility Agreement and Preliminary Engineering Utility Agreement". Recuse: Ashley, Matas, Jeffries, and Reed At this time, legal counsel requested a motion to approve Agenda Item 8E. Chair Matas recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, recommendation no. 1d, due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Reed reiterated his recusal from Agenda Item 8E, recommendation nos. 1d and 2, due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Marion Ashley recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, all recommendations, due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Jeffries recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, recommendation no. 1d, due to a conflict of interest. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, restated the above recusals for confirmation. Commissioners Ashley, Jeffries, Matas, and Reed confirmed as restated by the Clerk of the Board. Commissioner Washington recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, all recommendations, due to a conflict of interest. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 9 Commissioner Tavaglione recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, all recommendations, due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Scott Mann recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, recommendation no. 1d, due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Bob Magee recused himself from Agenda Item 8E, recommendation no. 1d, due to a conflict of interest. M/S/C (Radi/zanowic) to: 1) Approve the following agreements for final engineering and construction for utility relocations for the 71/91 interchange project in the amount of $816,435, plus a contingency of $204,109, for a total amount not to exceed $1,020,544: a) Agreement No. 16-31-068-00 with AT&T in an amount not to exceed $18,162; b) Agreement No. 16-31-069-00 with AT&T (Prado) in an amount not to exceed $21,503; c) Agreement No. 16-31-070-00 with the city of Corona in an amount not to exceed $170,175; d) Agreement No. 16-31-071-00 with Southern California Edison (SCE) in an amount not to exceed $528,698; and e) Agreement No. 16-31-072-00 with Sprint in an amount not to exceed $77,897; 2) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-073-00 with Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for preliminary engineering for a utility relocation for the project in the amount of $335,999, plus a contingency amount of $84,000, for a total amount not to exceed $419,999; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for these utility relocation agreements. Abstain: Weill Recuse: as noted At this time, Commissioner Busch rejoined the meeting. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 10 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Anne Mayer announced the 1-15 Express Lanes DBE/SBE Summit is scheduled for April 28 from 9 a.m. — Noon at Circle City Center in Corona. The flyer was distributed to the Commissioners at the dais. Ms. Harmon noted she also emailed the flyer to the Commissioners. At this time, Commissioners Rick Gibbs and Jesse Molina along with the Caltrans District 8 representative David Bricker left the meeting. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Case No(s). RIC 1311348, RIC 1311597, RIC 1311700, RIC 1312676, RIC 1401559, RIC 1511130, and RIC 1602030 Commissioners Jeffries and Mann recused themselves from RIC 1401559. Commissioner Tavaglione left the meeting before RIC 1511130 and RIC 1602030 were discussed. Commissioner Ashley recused himself from RIC 1511130 and RIC 1602030. There were no announcements from Closed Session items. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Matas adjourned the meeting at 11:39 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, C..)1-9-4L- \- \O—RAYNS-- Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6 PUBLIC HEARING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2016/17 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget; and 2) Open the public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2016/17 Budget on May 11 and on June 8, 2016, and thereafter close the public hearing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff completed the initial budget preparation process, and attached is an executive summary for the proposed FY 2016/17 Budget. The policy goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 9 were the basis of this budget. The guiding principles and policy goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget relate to mobility initiatives, goods movement, improved system efficiencies, environmental stewardship, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, and public and agency communications, as well as financial and administration policies. Staff will present highlights of significant items included in the budget and is seeking review of and input on the proposed FY 2016/17 Budget. Based on input received from Commissioners, staff will update the document, as necessary, and present the proposed budget for the opening of the public hearing and for the Commission's review on May 11. As a result of input received from the public and the Commission, staff will make any necessary changes to the budget document for final review, close of the public hearing, and adoption at its June 8 Commission meeting. The executive summary document contains a summary of all departmental budgets and summarizes the information for the Commission. The department budgets present the goals and objectives, the resources needed to accomplish the goals, and the appropriations required to accomplish the tasks. Staff also included the budgets by governmental fund type, as this table provides a summary of the budgeted revenues and expenditures from a fund perspective. Agenda Item 6 1 Preliminary funding estimates for transit operating and capital expenditures have been included in the budget, although the draft Short Range Transit Plans are still under review. An adjustment for a revised estimate of these transit expenditures may be included in the final budget document presented in June 2016. At the June 8 Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget document with detailed narratives. A summary of the proposed FY 2016/17 Budget is as follows: Revenues and other financing sources: Sales taxes -Measure A and Local Transportation Funds Reimbursements (federal, state, and other) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Funds, including reimbursements State Transit Assistance Toll revenues Other revenues Interest on investments Debt proceeds Transfers in Total revenues and other financing sources Expenditures and other financing uses: Personnel salaries and fringe benefits Professional services Support services Projects and operations Capital outlay Debt service (principal and interest) Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Beginning fund balance (projected) Ending fund balance (projected) FY 2016/17 Budget $ 263,500,000 51,033,200 18,520,000 10,821,600 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,871,300 128,269,200 241,732,700 722,064,000 9,500,400 22,053,700 10,053,400 584,752,500 1,916,000 53,629,800 241,732,700 923,638,500 (201,574,500) 741,141,700 $ 539,567,200 Attachment: Executive Summary for the Proposed FY 2016/17 Budget Agenda Item 6 2 Executive Summary Introduction The budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016/17 is presented to the Board of Commissioners (Board) and the citizens of Riverside County (County). The budget outlines the projects the Commission plans to undertake during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also shows the funding sources and fund balances that will be used for these projects. This document will serve as the Commission's monetary guideline. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department includes a review of accomplishments, major initiatives, and key assumptions. Staff used the goals and objectives approved at the Commission meeting on March 9, 2016 to prepare this budget. In addition to the Commission's guiding principles, long-term goals, and strategic plan, the short-term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the budget. Operational • Aggressively pursue completion of the environmental, design, right of way, and construction processes on the State Route (SR) 91 project (91 Project), Interstate (I) 215 corridor improvement project; and 1-15 Express Lanes project included in the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan, as these projects create jobs and improve the economic base in the County. (Mobility, Economic Development) • Enhance corridor mobility and traveler choice by completing property acquisition and construction on the 91 Project and continuing to develop a plan of finance for tolled express lanes on 1-15. (Mobility) • Provide leadership in the planning and development of the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor rail service. (Mobility) • Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of eligible arterial improvements in western Riverside County (Western County). (Mobility) • Work closely with partners in the Coachella Valley to ensure the implementation of Measure A funding priorities. (Mobility) • Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A ordinance and determine uses for any unexpended revenues. (Mobility) • Complete the environmental permitting, preliminary engineering, and environmental mitigation for the Mid County Parkway and SR-79 realignment projects. (Mobility) • Work with local and regional agencies in developing resources for preservation and maintenance of the highways and regional arterials. (Mobility) • Continue active engagement in state and federal efforts to streamline and reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (Mobility, Environmental Stewardship) • Consider future rail expansion opportunities including the potential for extension of the Perris Valley Line to the Hemet/San Jacinto and Temecula areas. (Mobility) • Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders with special transit needs. (Intermodalism & Accessibility) • Support cost controls and promote operating efficiency for transit operators. (Intermodalism & Accessibility, System Efficiencies) • Maintain effective partnerships among commuters, employers, and government to increase the efficiency of our transportation system by encouraging and promoting motorized and non -motorized transportation alternatives. (Intermodalism & Accessibility, System Efficiencies) • Continue to provide a motorist aid system that ensures safety and convenience to freeway motorists. (System Efficiencies) • Maintain an active involvement in state and federal legislative matters to ensure that the Commission receives proper consideration for transportation projects and funding. (Communications) • Explore local options for sustainable funding in addressing long-term transportation and quality -of -life needs for the County. (Communications, Environmental Stewardship) 3 " C o m m e n c e t h e f i r s t t e n - y e a r u p d a t e o f t h e 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e A E x p e n d i t u r e P l a n , a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e o r d i n a n c e a n d i n i t i a t e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a c o u n t y - w i d e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n . ( M o b i l i t y ) " D e v e l o p a n d i m p l e m e n t e x p r e s s l a n e m a r k e t i n g a n d p r o m o t i o n c a m p a i g n s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s t o l l f a c i l i t i e s t o i n c r e a s e c u s t o m e r a c c o u n t s a n d l a n e u s a g e . ( C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , M o b i l i t y ) " M a i n t a i n c l o s e c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h C o m m i s s i o n e r s a n d e d u c a t e p o l i c y m a k e r s o n a l l i s s u e s o f i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n . ( C o m m u n i c a t i o n s ) " D e v e l o p a n d e x e c u t e a l o n g - t e r m c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d c u s t o m e r e n g a g e m e n t s t r a t e g y f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n a n d c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e . ( C o m m u n i c a t i o n s ) F i n a n c i a l " F u n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s w i t h a l l o c a t i o n s f r o m M e a s u r e A , L T F , F S P , S A F E , a n d T U M F f u n d s . ( F i n a n c i a l P l a n n i n g ) " M a i n t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o g r a m d e l i v e r y c o s t s b e l o w t h e p o l i c y t h r e s h o l d o f 4 % o f M e a s u r e A r e v e n u e s ; t h e F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 M a n a g e m e n t S e r v i c e s b u d g e t i s 2 . 8 8 % o f M e a s u r e A r e v e n u e s . ( F i n a n c i a l P l a n n i n g , E x p e n d i t u r e s ) " M a i n t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a l a r i e s a n d b e n e f i t s a t l e s s t h a n 1 % o f M e a s u r e A r e v e n u e s ; t h e F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a l a r i e s a n d b e n e f i t s i s . 9 2 % o f M e a s u r e A r e v e n u e s . ( F i n a n c i a l P l a n n i n g , E x p e n d i t u r e s ) " C o n t i n u e t o m a i n t a i n p r u d e n t c a s h r e s e r v e s t o p r o v i d e s o m e l e v e l o f i n s u l a t i o n f o r u n p l a n n e d e x p e n d i t u r e s . ( R e s e r v e s , C a s h M a n a g e m e n t & I n v e s t m e n t ) " C o n t i n u e t o m a i n t a i n c u r r e n t s t r o n g b o n d r a t i n g s w i t h r a t i n g a g e n c i e s . ( D e b t M a n a g e m e n t ) " M o v e f o r w a r d o n M e a s u r e A p r o j e c t s f o r h i g h w a y s a n d r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l s u s i n g s a l e s t a x r e v e n u e s , T U M F r e v e n u e s , a n d s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l f u n d i n g a s w e l l a s f i n a n c i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s s u c h a s c o m m e r c i a l p a p e r , s a l e s t a x r e v e n u e b o n d s , t o l l r e v e n u e b o n d s , a n d f e d e r a l l o a n s . ( D e b t M a n a g e m e n t , E x p e n d i t u r e s ) " E s t a b l i s h a n d m a i n t a i n r e v e n u e s a n d r e s e r v e s g e n e r a t e d f r o m t o l l o p e r a t i o n s t o b e a v a i l a b l e f o r d e b t s e r v i c e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t o l l s u p p o r t e d d e b t a g r e e m e n t s ; m a i n t e n a n c e , r e p a i r , r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n s ; a n d c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r . ( R e s e r v e s , R e v e n u e s ) " C o n d u c t e n h a n c e d o u t r e a c h t o b u s i n e s s e s a n d c o n t r a c t o r s l o c a t e d i n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y r e g a r d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p r o v i d e c o m p e t i t i v e a n d q u a l i f i e d g o o d s a n d / o r s e r v i c e s t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n . ( P r o c u r e m e n t ) " M a i n t a i n t h e e n t e r p r i s e r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g ( E R P ) s y s t e m t o i n t e g r a t e p r o j e c t a c c o u n t i n g n e e d s a n d i m p r o v e a c c o u n t i n g e f f i c i e n c y . ( A u d i t i n g , A c c o u n t i n g & F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t i n g ) " M a n a g e C o m m i s s i o n p r o j e c t s a n d p r o g r a m s , i n c l u d i n g t o l l o p e r a t i o n s , w i t h a s m a l l b u t e f f e c t i v e s t a f f b y a u g m e n t i n g s t a f f e f f o r t s w i t h c o n t r a c t s t a f f a n d c o n s u l t a n t s . ( H u m a n R e s o u r c e s M a n a g e m e n t ) B u d g e t O v e r v i e w T o t a l s o u r c e s ( T a b l e 1 ) a r e b u d g e t e d a t $ 7 2 2 , 0 6 4 , 0 0 0 w h i c h i s a d e c r e a s e o f 1 6 % o v e r F Y 2 0 1 5 / 1 6 p r o j e c t e d s o u r c e s a n d a 9 % d e c r e a s e o v e r t h e F Y 2 0 1 5 / 1 6 r e v i s e d b u d g e t . T o t a l s o u r c e s a r e c o m p r i s e d o f r e v e n u e s o f $ 3 5 2 , 0 6 2 , 1 0 0 , t r a n s f e r s i n o f $ 2 4 1 , 7 3 2 , 7 0 0 , a n d d e b t p r o c e e d s o f $ 1 2 8 , 2 6 9 , 2 0 0 . T h e p r o j e c t e d f u n d b a l a n c e a t J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 a v a i l a b l e f o r e x p e n d i t u r e s ( e x c l u d i n g r e s e r v e s f o r d e b t s e r v i c e o f $ 8 1 , 8 4 5 , 5 0 0 a n d a d v a n c e s r e c e i v a b l e o f $ 3 0 , 2 4 5 , 5 0 0 ) i s $ 6 2 9 , 0 5 0 , 7 0 0 . A c c o r d i n g l y , t o t a l f u n d i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 b u d g e t t o t a l s $ 1 , 3 5 1 , 1 1 4 , 7 0 0 . 4 Table 1— Sources FY 2015-2017 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Intergovernmental TUMF Revenue Toll Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income Transfers In Debt Proceeds TOTAL Sources 163,092,800 81,332,500 13,484,300 110,515,600 17,400,800 2,542,400 6,258,200 232,626,100 48,904,100 676,156,800 170,000,000 $ 170,000,000 83,000,000 83,000,000 13,372,400 13, 372,400 110,810,700 110, 307,400 18,053,800 18, 041, 000 787,000 185,000 2,456,300 5,663,000 136,326, 500 171,685,900 261,277,900 291,880,700 796,084,600 $ 864,135,400 $ 177,000,000 86,500,000 10,821,600 51,033,200 18,520,000 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,871,300 241,732,700 128,269,200 $ 722,064,000 $ 7,000,000 4% 3,500,000 4% (2,550,800) -19% (59,777,500) -54% 466,200 3% 3,798,000 N/A 1,731,000 220% (585,000) -24% 105,406,200 77% (133,008,700) -51% $ (74,020,600) -9% Riverside County has specific competitive advantages over nearby coastal counties (Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego) including housing that is more available and affordable as well as plentiful commercial real estate and land available for development at lower costs. Riverside County's economy is benefitting from employment gains that are a function of the County's ability to attract businesses with lower commercial rents and a skilled labor force. Population migration to the Inland Empire (i.e., Riverside and San Bernardino counties) has occurred due to these employment opportunities and a lower cost of living compared to the coastal counties; however, wage growth has been flat and centered on lower and moderate incomes. Nonetheless since the last recession, improvements in the local labor market combined with increased economic activity support stable sales tax revenue growth as noted on Chart 1. Chart 1—Sources: Five -Year Trend $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Measure A Sales Tax ilmLTE Sales Tax a, STA Sales Tax BTU M F a Federal, State, Local Revenues Toll Revenue "*.im,Transfers In Debt Proceeds Sales tax revenues have continued to rebound from the economic downturn's low point in 2010. The Commission's economic outlook for FY 2016/17 continues to be cautiously optimistic; however, the state and federal budget issues continue to affect funding of the Commission's capital projects and programs. Should Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues fluctuate and the availability of federal and state revenues continue to be uncertain, the timing and scope of the Commission's projects and programs may be impacted. While the Commission's primary revenues are the Measure A and LTF sales taxes, other revenues and financing sources are required to fund the Commission's programs and projects as illustrated in Chart 2. 5 Chart 2 — Sources: Major Categories Transfers In 33% h� Investment Income 0% Other Revenue 0% Measure A Sales Tax . 25% STA Sales Tax 1% Intergovernmental TUMF Revenue 7% Toll Revenue 3% 1% The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) recently provided to cities and other agencies its projections that statewide taxable sales over the next fiscal year will increase 5.3%; however, the Commission is not basing its estimate of revenues solely on the SBOE's projection and will continue its conservative projection practices. After taking the state of the local economy and recent revenue trends into consideration, staff projects Measure A sales tax revenues of $177,000,000 for FY 2016/17. This is a 4% increase from the FY 2015/16 revised projection of $170,000,000. At midyear the Commission will reassess sales tax revenue projections based on the economy and revenue trends. On behalf of the County, the Commission administers the LTF for public transportation needs, local streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The majority of LTF funding received by the County and available for allocation is distributed to all public transit operators in the County, and the Commission receives allocations for administration, planning, and programming in addition to funding for Western County rail operations included in the commuter rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The LTF sales tax revenue received from the State is budgeted at $86,500,000; an increase of 4% from the FY 2015/16 revised projection of $83,000,000. STA funds generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel are allocated by formula by the State Controller to the Commission for allocations to the County's public transit operators. The STA transit allocation, which is based on recent State estimates, for FY 2016/17 is $10,821,600. Intergovernmental revenues include reimbursement revenues from federal sources of $28,007,100, state sources of $8,830,000, and local agencies of $14,196,100 for highway and rail capital projects, rail operations and station maintenance, commuter assistance, and motorist assistance programs as well as planning and programming activities. The significant decrease of 54% in FY 2016/17 compared to the FY 2015/16 revised budget is due to substantial completion of the Perris Valley Line and 1-215 corridor improvement projects. Reimbursement revenues vary from year to year depending on project activities and funding levels. As a result of an amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Commission will receive 48.7% of TUMF revenues (as updated by the most recent Nexus study). TUMF represents fees assessed on new residential and commercial development in Western County. FY 2016/17 TUMF fees are projected at $18,500,000 and are slightly higher than the FY 2015/16 revised projection of $18,000,000 and reflect the encouraging signs in the housing market in the Inland Empire. Additional TUMF zone reimbursements of $20,000 are expected for the 74/215 interchange project. FY 2016/17 will mark the initial year of toll operations for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes following substantial completion of the 91 Project anticipated in January 2017. Estimated toll revenues of $3,798,000 are derived from the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Report and 2013 financing assumptions. 6 Other revenue of $2,518,000 is projected to increase 220% from the prior year's budget of $787,000 and is related to miscellaneous non -toll revenues generated in connection with the 91 Express Lanes. Investment income in FY 2016/17 is anticipated to decrease by $585,000 or 24% compared to the FY 2015/16 budget due to substantial use of sales tax and toll revenue bond proceeds on the 91 Project. Staff continues to actively manage its resources and make appropriate investments to maximize the return to the Commission without sacrificing security and affecting short-term cash requirements. Transfers in of $241,732,700 relate primarily to the transfer of available debt proceeds for highway projects; LTF funding for general administration, planning and programming, rail operations and station maintenance, and grade separation project allocations; approved interfund allocations for specific projects; and debt service requirements from highway, regional arterial, and local streets and roads funds. Debt proceeds consist of draw downs of $100,269,200 from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan related to the 91 Project and issuance of $28,000,000 in commercial paper notes related to the 1-15 Express Lanes project. Total uses (Table 2), including transfers out of $241,732,700, are budgeted at $923,638,500, a decrease of 12% from the prior year budget amount of $1,052,893,300. Program expenditures and transfers out totaling $850,702,200 represent 92% of total budgeted uses in FY 2016/17. Program costs have decreased by 13% from $980,951,900 in FY 2015/16 due to significant completion of several projects identified below. Table 2 — Uses FY 2015-2017 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Actual Revised Budget FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Projected Budget Dollar Change Percent Change Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials Capital Local Streets and Roads Commuter Assistance Debt Service Management Services Motorist Assistance Planning and Programming Public and Specialized Transit Rail Maintenance and Operations Toll Operations TOTAL Uses 663,672,400 48,612,900 3,050,900 53,325,000 7,660,700 5,323,400 2,419,000 105,643,900 14,122,600 $ 742,994,300 50,679,000 3,846,800 53,919,900 18,021,500 6,476,900 7,207,800 143,558,600 26,188,500 903,830,800 $ 1,052,893,300 650,792,200 50,679,000 3,896,700 53,612,800 17,952,600 6,478,300 4,460,400 117,614,400 21,309,700 926,796,100 600,120,600 52,587,000 3,579,900 53,629,800 19,306,500 6,851,900 12,059,600 134,852,900 34,097,200 6,553,100 923,638,500 (142,873,700) 1,908,000 (266,900) (290,100) 1,285,000 375,000 4,851,800 (8,705,700) 7,908,700 6,553,100 (129,254,800) -19% 4% -7% -1% 7% 6% 67% -6% 30% N/A -12 % Note: Management Services includes Executive Management, Administration, Legislative Affairs and Communications, and Finance. Capital highway, rail, and regional arterials budgeted uses of $600,120,600 are 19% lower compared to the FY 2015/16 budget due to significant completion of the 60/215 East Junction high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane connectors, SR-74 curve widening project, I-215 corridor improvement project, and Perris Valley Line project. Local streets and roads expenditures of $52,587,000 reflect an increase of 4% over the FY 2015/16 budget and represent the disbursements to local jurisdictions for the construction, repair, and maintenance of local streets and roads. Commuter Assistance budgeted expenditures of $3,579,900 are 7% lower than FY 2015/16 budget due to anticipated completion of 1E511 commuter system enhancements, contractor transition, and relief of funding Downtown Perris station security. Debt Service of $53,629,800 has decreased 1% and is comparable to the FY 2015/16 revised budget. Management Services expenditures have increased 7% or $1,285,000 from the FY 2015/16 budget due to information technology equipment upgrades, preparation for toll operations, financial advisory services, and debt service contribution. Motorist Assistance expenditures have increased 6% or $375,000 from the FY 2015/16 budget as a result of call box hardware upgrades and increased FSP construction service. 7 Planning and Programming budgeted expenditures of $12,059,600 reflect a 67% increase from the FY 2015/16 budget due to increased projects and operations activities in connection with LTF disbursements for planning and programming, signal synchronization projects, and Fundtrak project database upgrades. Public and Specialized Transit budgeted expenditures of $134,852,900 are 6% lower than FY 2015/16 budget due to decreased transit capital expenditures for public transit. The 30% increase in Rail Maintenance and Operation's budgeted expenditures of $34,097,200 is primarily due to commencement of Perris Valley Line operations, maintenance of four new stations along the Perris Valley Line, and additional consultant work needed to perform planning and modeling for rail projects including the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor rail service. Toll operations expenses are budgeted at $6,553,100 and represent approximately six months in FY 2016/17 to manage the operations, maintenance, and capital support of the 91 Express Lanes. Total uses included in the FY 2016/17 budget by major categories are illustrated in Chart 3. Chart 3 — Uses: Major Categories Planning and Programming 1% Motorist Assistance 1% Management Services 2% Commute Assistance O% Capital Local Streets and Roads 6% Commission Personnel Rail Maintenance Toll Operations and Operations 1% 4% 1 r y Public and Specialized Transit 14% Capital Highway, Rail, and ; Regional Arterials 65 % The Commission's salaries and benefits total $9,500,400 for FY 2016/17. This is comparable to the FY 2015/16 revised budget of $9,499,800 (Chart 4) and includes a 4% pool for merit -based salary increases. The Commission's salary schedule for FY 2016/17 is included in Appendix B and complies with Government Code §20636 "Compensation Earnable" and California Code of Register §570.5, "Requirements for a Publicly Available Pay Schedule". 8 Chart 4 - Salaries and Benefits Cost: Five -Year Comparison $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 The FY 2016/17 full-time equivalents (FTE) of 49 positions are unchanged from the FY 2015/16 level (Table 3). As the Commission prepares for significant organization changes that include large transportation capital projects resulting in toll operations and the investment of billions of dollars requiring substantial attention at many staff levels, management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission's enabling legislation that called for a small staff. Staff will continue to be provided the tools needed to ensure an efficient and productive work environment. However, it must be recognized that small is not viewed in an absolute context; it is relative to the required tasks to be performed and the demands to be met. Table 3 - Full -Time Equivalents by Department FY 2015-2017 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Executive Management 0.6 0.4 0.4 Administration 4.9 5.0 4.7 Legislative Affairs and Communications 2.2 2.3 1.9 Finance 7.6 7.4 7.8 Planning and Programming 6.0 5.6 6.3 Rail Maintenance and Operations 4.0 4.1 4.6 Public and Specialized Transit 2.3 2.1 2.3 Commuter Assistance 1.9 1.9 1.6 Motorist Assistance 0.8 1.0 0.9 Capital Project Development and Delivery 13.7 19.2 17.4 Toll Operations 0.0 0.0 1.1 TOTAL 44.0 49.0 49.0 The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to all permanent, salaried employees. The package includes: health, dental, vision, life insurance, short and long-term disability, workers' compensation, tuition assistance, sick and vacation leave, retirement benefits in the form of participation in CaIPERS, postretirement health care, deferred compensation, and employee assistance program. The compensation components are shown in Chart 5. 9 Chart 5 — Personnel Salaries and Benefits Other Fringes 7% Health 12% Retirement 15% Department Initiatives Salaries 66% The preparation of each department's budget was based on key assumptions, accomplishments in FY 2015/16, major initiatives for FY 2016/17, and department goals and related objectives. Following are the key initiatives and summary of expenditures for each department (Tables 4 through 14). Executive Management • Continue project development and delivery as the key Measure A priority. • Serve as lead agency on two notable, high -profile projects: the 91 Project in Corona and the 1-15 Express Lanes project. • Continue planning efforts to advance passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor. • Advocate for state and federal investments in transportation to fund needed transportation priorities in the County and stimulate the local economy. • Initiate a Riverside County Transportation Plan for use in establishing an integrated transportation vision and priorities. • Maintain regional cooperation and collaboration as a significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of the Commission. • Enhance communication with the public by implementing a comprehensive social media effort focused on current projects and Commission activities. • Maintain an effective mid -sized transportation agency with a small and dedicated staff. Table 4 — Executive Management FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 171,500 $ 95,400 $ 95,400 Professional 246,300 360,000 300,000 Support 63,400 87,100 83,700 TOTAL $ 481,200 $ 542,500 $ 479,100 Administration $ 90,600 325,000 87,100 $ 502,700 $ (4,800) -5% (35,000) -10% 0% $ (39,800) -7% • Provide high quality support services to the Commission and to internal and external customers. • Continue to enhance the electronic records management system. 10 " C o n t i n u e t o p r o v i d e t i m e l y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t o C o m m i s s i o n e r s w i t h c o n t i n u e d e m p h a s i s o n t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f e l e c t r o n i c m a i l . " C o n t i n u e t o u p d a t e t e c h n o l o g y t o s t r e a m l i n e p r o c e s s e s a n d p r o v i d e e a s i e r a c c e s s t o C o m m i s s i o n r e c o r d s . " S u p p o r t a n d d e v e l o p a m o t i v a t e d w o r k f o r c e w i t h a f r a m e w o r k o f a c t i v i t i e s a n d p r a c t i c e s t h a t c o m p l y w i t h e m p l o y m e n t l a w s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . " C o n t i n u e t o e m p l o y a n d r e c r u i t a d y n a m i c a n d t a l e n t e d w o r k f o r c e . T a b l e 5 - A d m i n i s t r a t i o n F Y 1 4 / 1 5 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 6 / 1 7 D o l l a r P e r c e n t A c t u a l R e v i s e d B u d g e t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 5 8 6 , 6 0 0 $ 6 1 7 , 6 0 0 $ 6 1 7 , 6 0 0 P r o f e s s i o n a l 2 7 1 , 7 0 0 4 4 8 , 5 0 0 2 7 1 , 0 0 0 S u p p o r t 6 7 7 , 2 0 0 7 4 6 , 7 0 0 6 4 3 , 1 0 0 C a p i t a l O u t l a y 3 6 4 , 6 0 0 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 D e b t S e r v i c e 2 4 , 9 0 0 - - T O T A L $ 1 , 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 8 7 , 8 0 0 $ 1 , 5 8 1 , 7 0 0 L e g i s l a t i v e A f f a i r s a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n s $ 5 9 0 , 7 0 0 3 9 8 , 0 0 0 7 3 4 , 8 0 0 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 8 9 8 , 5 0 0 $ ( 2 6 , 9 0 0 ) - 4 % ( 5 0 , 5 0 0 ) - 1 1 % ( 1 1 , 9 0 0 ) - 2 % 0 % N / A $ ( 8 9 , 3 0 0 ) - 4 % " C o n t i n u e e f f o r t s t o p r o t e c t a n d s e e k g r e a t e r s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l i n v e s t m e n t i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d g o o d s m o v e m e n t . " D e v e l o p e f f e c t i v e p a r t n e r s h i p s w i t h t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o v i d e r s t o c o m m u n i c a t e a u n i f i e d m e s s a g e t o C o n g r e s s r e g a r d i n g m o b i l i t y n e e d s . " A d v o c a t e p o s i t i o n s i n t h e S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e a n d i n C o n g r e s s t h a t a d v a n c e t h e C o u n t y ' s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n t e r e s t s a n d p l a y a n a c t i v e r o l e i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e F A S T A c t . " C o n t i n u e a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e i n f o r m u l a t i n g a c o u n t y w i d e d i r e c t i o n o n f e d e r a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p o l i c i e s . " T a k e a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e o n t h e m o d e r n i z a t i o n o f C E Q A . " E n g a g e i n e s s e n t i a l l e g i s l a t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s t o s t a b i l i z e a n d i n c r e a s e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f u n d i n g p u r s u a n t t o C o m m i s s i o n a c t i o n o n f u n d i n g p r i n c i p l e s g e n e r a t e d b y t h e s t r a t e g i c a s s e s s m e n t s t u d y . " S e e k a n a c t i v e r o l e t o e n s u r e t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a r o a d c h a r g e p i l o t p r o g r a m a d d r e s s e s t h e n e e d s a n d c o n c e r n s o f C o u n t y r e s i d e n t s a n d b u s i n e s s e s . " C o n t i n u e t o h e i g h t e n C o m m i s s i o n p r e s e n c e o n m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t o l l i n g p o l i c y . " C o n d u c t a c o n c e r t e d o u t r e a c h e f f o r t t o n e w f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o n l o c a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s s u e s . " C o n t i n u e t o d e v e l o p a b r o a d p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n p r o g r a m r e g a r d i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a n d a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s t h r o u g h a v a r i e t y o f m e d i a f o r m a t s a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n c l u d i n g e x p a n d i n g t h e u s e o f s o c i a l m e d i a a n d o t h e r e m e r g i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s . " C o n t i n u e t o p l a c e a n e m p h a s i s o n p r o v i d i n g p r o a c t i v e p u b l i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s u p p o r t r e l a t e d t o m a j o r p r o j e c t d e v e l o p m e n t e f f o r t s . " C o n d u c t a p u b l i c o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m , " O p e r a t i o n L i f e s a v e r " , t a r g e t i n g s c h o o l s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o r a i l r o a d t r a c k s o n r a i l s a f e t y e d u c a t i o n , e n g i n e e r i n g , a n d e n f o r c e m e n t . " P r o v i d e n e w C o m m i s s i o n e r - o r i e n t a t i o n m e e t i n g s a n d o t h e r c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r C o m m i s s i o n e r s . T a b l e 6 - L e g i s l a t i v e A f f a i r s a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n s F Y 1 4 / 1 5 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 6 / 1 7 D o l l a r P e r c e n t A c t u a l R e v i s e d B u d g e t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 4 3 8 , 9 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 5 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 5 0 0 $ 5 3 7 , 0 0 0 $ ( 6 3 , 5 0 0 ) - 1 1 % P r o f e s s i o n a l 4 3 9 , 6 0 0 7 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 0 8 , 0 0 0 7 5 1 , 0 0 0 2 2 , 8 0 0 3 % S u p p o r t 4 8 , 0 0 0 1 8 7 , 7 0 0 8 1 , 6 0 0 1 6 9 , 4 0 0 ( 1 8 , 3 0 0 ) - 1 0 % T O T A L $ 9 2 6 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 1 6 , 4 0 0 $ 1 , 2 9 0 , 1 0 0 $ 1 , 4 5 7 , 4 0 0 $ ( 5 9 , 0 0 0 ) - 4 % F i n a n c e " C o n t i n u e a p p r o p r i a t e u s e s o f l o n g - a n d s h o r t - t e r m f i n a n c i n g t o a d v a n c e 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e A p r o j e c t s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n . " A p p l y t h e s a l e s t a x r e v e n u e f o r e c a s t u p d a t e t o u p d a t e a f i n a n c i n g p l a n t o s u p p o r t t h e W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y D e l i v e r y P l a n a n d C V A G h i g h w a y a n d r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t s . 1 1 " W o r k i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h t h e t o l l o p e r a t i o n s c o n t r a c t o r ' s b a c k o f f i c e t o d e v e l o p a n d i m p l e m e n t a c c o u n t i n g a n d f i n a n c i a l p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e s s e s . " C o n t i n u e t o k e e p a b r e a s t o f G o v e r n m e n t a l A c c o u n t i n g S t a n d a r d s B o a r d ( G A S B ) t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s a c c o u n t i n g a n d f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t i n g a c t i v i t i e s a n d i m p l e m e n t n e w p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . " C o n t i n u e t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e E R P s y s t e m t o b e n e f i t a l l s t a f f i n t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f a c c o u n t i n g a n d p r o j e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d a u t o m a t i o n o f a p a p e r l e s s w o r k f l o w s y s t e m . " M a n a g e a c e n t r a l i z e d p r o c u r e m e n t s p r o c e s s i n o r d e r t o s t r e n g t h e n c o n t r o l s a n d e n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r o c u r e m e n t p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s a n d a d h e r e n c e t o a p p l i c a b l e l a w s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . " C o n d u c t o u t r e a c h a c t i v i t i e s t o e n c o u r a g e d i s a d v a n t a g e d b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e ( D B E ) a n d s m a l l b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e ( S B E ) p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n v a r i o u s c o n t r a c t s . T a b l e 7 F i n a n c e F Y 1 4 / 1 5 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 6 / 1 7 D o l l a r P e r c e n t A c t u a l R e v i s e d B u d g e t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 1 , 0 0 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 7 7 , 9 0 0 $ 1 , 0 7 7 , 9 0 0 P r o f e s s i o n a l 2 , 5 6 4 , 5 0 0 2 , 6 4 8 , 3 0 0 2 , 6 1 5 , 7 0 0 S u p p o r t 7 7 3 , 7 0 0 1 , 1 9 0 , 7 0 0 9 0 3 , 1 0 0 C a p i t a l O u t l a y 3 , 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 T r a n s f e r s O u t 2 , 7 0 0 9 , 0 0 7 , 9 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 T O T A L $ 4 , 3 5 2 , 9 0 0 $ 1 3 , 9 7 4 , 8 0 0 $ 1 4 , 6 0 1 , 7 0 0 P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g $ 1 , 0 8 5 , 2 0 0 3 , 0 6 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 2 4 7 , 7 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 , 4 4 7 , 9 0 0 7 , 3 0 0 1 4 1 6 , 7 0 0 1 6 % 5 7 , 0 0 0 5 % 0 % 9 9 2 , 1 0 0 1 1 % $ 1 , 4 7 3 , 1 0 0 1 1 % " M o n i t o r f u n d i n g a u t h o r i t y a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e l a t e d t o t h e S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( S T I P ) a n d i m p a c t s o n t h e S T I P c a u s e d b y t h e s t a t e b u d g e t i s s u e s . " E n s u r e S T I P / R I P , A c t i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o g r a m ( A T P ) , a n d o t h e r f u n d e d p r o j e c t s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C a l i f o r n i a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ( C T C ) , C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( C a l t r a n s ) , a n d S C A G p o l i c i e s . " C o n t i n u e t o s t r a t e g i c a l l y p r o g r a m p r o j e c t s a n d o b l i g a t e f u n d s i n a n e x p e d i t i o u s m a n n e r f o r t h e m a x i m u m u s e o f a l l a v a i l a b l e f u n d i n g , i n c l u d i n g m o n i t o r i n g t h e u s e o f s u c h f u n d i n g t o p r e v e n t f u n d s f r o m l a p s i n g . " F o c u s o n i n t e r r e g i o n a l c o n c e r n s a n d m a i n t a i n e f f e c t i v e w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v i n g v a r i o u s m u l t i - c o u n t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s s u e s , i n c l u d i n g g o o d s m o v e m e n t . " C o o r d i n a t e p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s w i t h r e g i o n a l a n d l o c a l a g e n c i e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e g i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n s ( R T P ) a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s r e d u c t i o n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n g u i d e l i n e s . " S e c u r e f u n d i n g t h r o u g h t h e f e d e r a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n b i l l f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t - r e l a t e d n e e d s . " M o n i t o r a n d t r a c k t h e T U M F r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t s . " W o r k c o o p e r a t i v e l y w i t h m e m b e r a g e n c i e s t o c o n t i n u e t h e w o r k e f f o r t s o n t h e n e w C o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A c c e p t a b i l i t y P r o c e s s ( C E T A P ) c o r r i d o r s . " C o n t i n u e t h e C o n g e s t i o n M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m ( C M P ) u p d a t e a n d t r a f f i c m o n i t o r i n g a l o n g u r b a n a n d r u r a l h i g h w a y s y s t e m s . " P a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e A T P g u i d e l i n e s t o r e p r e s e n t t h e C o u n t y ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t i n p r o g r a m f u n d i n g . " A d m i n i s t e r t h e S B 8 2 1 B i c y c l e a n d P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s P r o g r a m ( S B 8 2 1 ) . " W o r k w i t h t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a C o n s e n s u s G r o u p r e g a r d i n g g o o d s m o v e m e n t i s s u e s i m p a c t i n g t h e C o u n t y . T a b l e 8 P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g F Y 1 4 / 1 5 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 5 / 1 6 F Y 1 6 / 1 7 D o l l a r P e r c e n t A c t u a l R e v i s e d B u d g e t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 1 , 0 6 5 , 3 0 0 $ 1 , 1 4 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 4 8 , 3 0 0 $ 1 , 2 6 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 % P r o f e s s i o n a l 1 8 9 , 6 0 0 1 6 8 , 0 0 0 2 1 2 , 1 0 0 4 1 3 , 5 0 0 2 4 5 , 5 0 0 1 4 6 % S u p p o r t 2 0 , 8 0 0 2 3 , 3 0 0 1 6 , 0 0 0 2 0 , 9 0 0 ( 2 , 4 0 0 ) - 1 0 % P r o j e c t s a n d O p e r a t i o n s 1 , 1 4 3 , 3 0 0 5 , 8 1 7 , 5 0 0 3 , 0 8 4 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 3 6 1 , 2 0 0 4 , 5 4 3 , 7 0 0 7 8 % T r a n s f e r s O u t - 5 0 , 0 0 0 - - ( 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) - 1 0 0 % T O T A L $ 2 , 4 1 9 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 7 , 8 0 0 $ 4 , 4 6 0 , 4 0 0 $ 1 2 , 0 5 9 , 6 0 0 $ 4 , 8 5 1 , 8 0 0 6 7 % 1 2 Rail Maintenance and Operations • As a member of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), continue active participation in the governance and operations of the Metrolink commuter rail system. • Continue the planning and implementation of capital improvements at the commuter rail stations in the County, including security and rehabilitation projects and parking requirements. • Continue to support and evaluate activities related to the implementation of Perris Valley Line service. • Establish best approach to build, maintain, and operate cost effective and environmentally sustainable facilities that meet the public's transportation needs. • Lead the service development process and actively coordinate with all stakeholders along the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor for intercity passenger rail service. • Develop the next generation rail feasibility study to evaluate future growth opportunities for passenger rail in the County. Table 9 — Rail Maintenance and Operations FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 618,300 $ 760,600 $ 759,400 Professional 1,178,100 2,075,000 1,313,500 Support 1,346,400 2,936,200 1,906,600 Projects and Operations 10,979,800 20,256,300 17,293,000 Capital Outlay - 160,400 37,200 TOTAL $ 14,122,600 $ 26,188,500 $ 21,309,700 Public and Specialized Transit $ 852,800 4,691,000 3,054,100 25,458,300 41,000 $ 34,097,200 $ 92,200 12% 2,616,000 126% 117,900 4% 5,202,000 26% (119,400) -74% $ 7,908,700 30% • Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders having very special transit needs and monitor funding of these programs. • Continue long-range planning activities to ensure that anticipated revenues are in line with projected levels of service by transit operators. • Continue public transit operator oversight and fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that annual fiscal audits and state triennial performance audits are conducted in accordance with TDA regulations. • Provide availability for local matching funds to Western County applicants seeking Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 federal capital grants. • Coordinate with operators on major capital purchases and investments into new rolling stock and other system improvements in order to maintain a viable on -hand reserve. • Coordinate with transit operators to provide connecting bus service to the new Perris Valley Line stations. Table 10 — Public and Specialized Transit FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 335,600 $ 353,600 $ 353,600 Professional 125,200 290,000 252,300 Support 9,900 30,100 57,400 Projects and Operations 88,694,100 117,455,800 93,722,000 Transfers Out 16,479,100 25,429,100 23,229,100 TOTAL $ 105,643,900 $ 143,558,600 $ 117,614,400 Commuter Assistance $ 387,500 181,800 54,200 110,669,400 23,560,000 $ 134,852,900 $ 33,900 10% (108,200) -37% 24,100 80% (6,786,400) -6% (1,869,100) -7% $ (8,705,700) -6% • Improve the suite of services and outreach to rideshare participants and employer partners, including personalized information and electronic access and distribution. • Maintain and grow employer partnerships through value-added services and tools for ridesharing programs. • Maintain long-term partnership with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to manage and implement a "sister' Commuter Assistance program for residents and employers in San Bernardino County. • Optimize park and ride facilities to support car/vanpool/buspool arrangements and facilitate transit connections. • Operate a cost-effective program within the County that results in reduction of single occupant vehicles. 13 Table 11- Commuter Assistance FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 297,500 $ 341,000 $ 341,500 $ 273,100 $ (67,900) -20% Professional 369,600 419,000 569,500 457,400 38,400 9% Support 300,300 209,300 193,200 204,400 (4,900) -2% Projects and Operations 1,924,000 2,718,000 2,633,000 2,645,000 (73,000) -3% Transfers Out 159,500 159,500 159,500 - (159,500) -100% TOTAL $ 3,050,900 $ 3,846,800 $ 3,896,700 $ 3,579,900 $ (266,900) -7% Motorist Assistance • Assess opportunities for efficiency related to the call box program operations. • Maintain a high benefit -to -cost ratio related to the performance of the FSP program. • Operate and maintain the 1E511 system in accordance with national 511 implementation standards in partnership with SANBAG. • Implement a seamless service transition to call box hardware upgrades in anticipation of cellular technology migrations. • Utilize the opportunity to enhance coordination between California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans on traveler information. Table 12 - Motorist Assistance FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 90,700 $ 168,700 $ 166,900 Professional 668,500 739,900 738,900 Support 385,400 940,100 934,300 Projects and Operations 3,173,400 3,642,500 3,652,500 Transfers Out 1,005,400 985,700 985,700 TOTAL $ 5,323,400 $ 6,476,900 $ 6,478,300 Capital Project Development and Delivery $ 130,600 666,900 919,300 4,026,200 1,108,900 $ 6,851,900 (38,100) -23% (73,000) -10% (20,800) -2% 383,700 11 123,200 12 375,000 6% • Complete construction, right of way, and close-out activities on remaining 1989 Measure A projects. • Continue project work on the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan projects, including the 91/71 connectors; the 91 Project; 1-15 Express Lanes project; SR-60 truck climbing lanes; SR-79 realignment; and Mid County Parkway. • Provide Western County Measure A regional arterial TUMF funding and support to local jurisdictions for regional arterial project engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction. • Provide 2009 Measure A funding to the incorporated cities, CVAG, and the County for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction. • Provide funding and support of 2009 Measure A highway and regional arterial projects. • Develop strategies to implement alternative financing structures including public toll roads. • Maintain a right of way acquisition and management program in support of capital projects. • Manage right of way acquisition in the most cost effective manner and within project schedules, while adhering to federal and state regulations. • Maintain and manage the access, use, safety, and security of Commission -owned properties including commuter rail stations, properties in acquisition process, and income -generating properties. 14 Table 13 — Capital Project Development and Delivery FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 2,752,000 $ 4,335,500 $ 4,330,500 Professional 5,795,600 9,160,100 8,557,400 Support 397,700 918,100 675,400 Projects and Operations 488,252,800 674,991,700 549,996,300 Capital Outlay 107,800 3,573,600 600,000 Debt Service 53,300,100 53,919,900 53,612,800 Transfers Out 214,979,400 100,694,300 137,311,600 TOTAL $ 765,585,400 $ 847,593,200 $ 755,084,000 Toll Operations $ 4,020,500 10,797,100 886,600 428,539,600 1,400,000 53,629,800 207,063,800 $ 706,337,400 $ (315,000) -7% 1,637,000 18 (31,500) -3% (246,452,100) -37% (2,173,600) -61% (290,100) -1% 106,369, 500 106 $ (141,255,800) -17% • Commence toll operations on SR-91 between the Orange County line and 1-15 in early 2017. • Continue collaboration between OCTA and the Commission to jointly operate and maintain the 91 Express Lanes. • Manage toll operations using investment grade traffic and revenue studies and cost estimate assumptions specific to each express lane facility. • Continue 1-15 Express Lanes toll planning through development of toll policies, business rules, future contract requirements, and agency agreements. • Provide timely and effective reporting of toll operation metrics including revenue, transactions, carpool usage, and performance indicators. • Participate in the California Toll Operators Committee to advance regional and statewide tolling initiatives, technology, interoperability, and coordination among California toll agencies. Table 14 — Toll Operations FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel Professional Support and Maintenance Projects and Operations Capital Outlay TOTAL $ $ $ Fund Balances $ 268,400 307,000 2,674,900 3,052,800 250,000 $ 6,553,100 268,400 N/A 307,000 N/A 2,674,900 N/A 3,052,800 N/A 250,000 N/A $ 6,553,100 N/A The total fund balance as of June 30, 2016 is projected at $741,141,700. The Commission's budgeted activities for FY 2016/17 are expected to result in a $201,574,500 decrease of total fund balance at June 30, 2017 to $539,567,200. The primary cause of the decrease is related to the project activities in FY 2016/17 related to the 91 Project, 1-15 Express Lanes project, 1-215 corridor improvement project, and Mid County Parkway,. Table 15 presents the components of fund balance by fund type and program at June 30, 2017. 15 Table 15 — Projected Fund Balances by Fund Type and Program at June 30, 2017 Riverside County Transportation Commission $539,567,200 General Fund Special Revenue Funds Capital Projects Funds Debt Service Fund $6,570,700 $424,016,400 559,763,600 $46,482,100 Enterprise Fund $2,734,400 Management Services $1,337,0OO Planning and Programming 1,417,200 Rail Maintenance and Operations 3,816,500 Budget Summary Measure A Western County: Bond Financing $7,076,500 Commuter Assistance 14,609,800 Economic Development 5,594,900 Highways 94,440,600 Local Streets and Roads 900 New Corridors 28,962,000 Public and Specialized Transit 7,253,200 Rail 34,635,800 Regional Arterials 19,793,700 Measure A Coachella Valley: Highways and Regional Arterial 13,317,700 Local Streets and Roads 1,300 Specialized Transit 1,430,300 Measure A Palo Verde Valley Local Streets and Roads 600 Other Agency Projects Fund 501,300 Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass 329,600 Motorist Assistance 6,114,800 State Transit Assistance 58,883,800 Local Transportation Fund 81,288,200 TUMF: CETAP Regional Arterial 22,943,100 26,838,300 Highways $59,763,600 91 Express Lanes $2,734,400 The overall budget for FY 2016/17 is presented in Table 16 by summarized line items, Table 17 by operating and capital classifications, and Table 18 by fund type, and highway, rail, and regional arterial program expenditures by project are summarized in Table 19. 16 Table 16 — Budget Comparative by Summarized Line Item FY 2015-2017 FY 14/15 Actual FY 15/16 FY 15/16 Revised Budget Projected FY 16/17 Budget Dollar Change Percent Change Revenues Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Federal Reimbursements State Reimbursements Local Reimbursements TUMF Revenue Toll Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues $ 163,092,800 81,332,500 13,484,300 57,614,000 50,623,800 2,277,800 17,400,800 2,542,400 6,258,200 394,626,600 Expenditures/Expenses Personnel Salaries and Benefits 7,365,400 Professional and Support Professional Services 11,848,700 Support Costs 4,022,800 TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 15,871,500 Projects and Operations Program Operations 14,168,800 Engineering 8,198,600 Construction 142,654,000 Design Build 191,599,200 Right of Way/Land 71,999,800 Operating and Capital Disbursements 99,376,400 Special Studies 274,400 Local Streets and Roads 48,612,900 Regional Arterials 17,283,300 TOTAL Projects and Operations 594,167,400 Debt Service Principal Payments 7,411,700 Interest Payments 45,913,300 TOTAL Debt Service 53,325,000 Capital Outlay 475,400 TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 671,204,700 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses (276,578,100) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In 232,626,100 Transfers Out (232,626,100) Debt Proceeds TIFIA Loan Proceeds 48,904,100 Net Financing Sources (Uses) 48,904,100 Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses and Other Financing Sources (Uses) (227,674,000) Beginning Fund Balance ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 170,000,000 83,000,000 13,372,400 50,595,800 56,130,600 4,084,300 18,053,800 787,000 2,456,300 398,480,200 9,499,800 17,037,000 7,269,300 24,306,300 23,474,900 20,260,900 158,550,600 284,681,200 105,090,400 149,700,800 1,844,000 50,679,000 30,600,000 824,881,800 7,800,000 46,119,900 53,919,900 3,959,000 916,566,800 (518,086,600) 136,326,500 (136,326,500) 261,277,900 261,277,900 (256,808,700) $ 170,000,000 83,000,000 13,372,400 39,712,800 61,395,600 9,199,000 18,041,000 185,000 5,663,000 400,568,800 9,491,600 15,438,400 5,494,400 20,932,800 19,996,600 5,531,500 123,909,100 279,380,700 42,324,100 115,907,000 1,752,800 50,679,000 30,900,000 670,380,800 7,800,000 45,812,800 53,612,800 692,200 755,110,200 $ 177,000,000 86,500,000 10,821,600 28,007,100 8,830,000 14,196,100 18,520,000 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,871,300 352,062,100 9,500,400 22,053,700 10,053,400 32,107,100 20,867,600 17,671,200 87,389,000 146,955,600 84,587,900 141,212,600 2,965,000 52,587,000 30,516,600 584,752,500 8,100,000 45,529,800 53,629,800 1,916,000 681,905,800 $ 7,000,000 3,500,000 (2,550,800) (22,588,700) (47,300,600) 10,111,800 466,200 3,798,000 1,731,000 (585,000) (46,418,100) 600 5,016,700 2,784,100 7,800,800 (2,607,300) (2,589,700) (71,161,600) (137,725,600) (20,502,500) (8,488,200) 1,121,000 1,908,000 (83,400) (240,129,300) 300,000 (590,100) (290,100) (2,043,000) (234,661,000) (354,541,400) (329,843,700) 188,242,900 171,685,900 (171,685,900) 20,000,000 271,880,700 291,880,700 241,732,700 105,406,200 (241,732,700) (105,406,200) 28,000,000 28,000,000 100,269,200 (161,008,700) 128,269,200 (133,008,700) (62,660,700) (201,574,500) 55,234,200 1,031,476,400 803,802,400 803,802,400 $ 803,802,400 $ 546,993,700 $ 741,141,700 741,141,700 (62,660,700) $ 539,567,200 $ (7,426,500) 4% 4% -19% -45 % -84 % 248% 3% N/A 220% -24% -12% 0% 29 % 38% 32% -11% -13% -45 % -48% -20% -6% 61% 4% 0% -29% -36% 77% 77% N/A -62% -51 % -22% -8% -1% 17 Table 17 — Operating and Capital Budget FY 2016/17 FY 16/17 Operating Budget FY 16/17 Capital Budget FY 16/17 TOTAL Budget Revenues Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Federal Reimbursements State Reimbursements Local Reimbursements TUMF Revenue Toll Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues Expenditures/Expenses Personnel Salaries and Benefits Professional and Support Professional Services Support Costs TOTAL Professional and Support Costs Projects and Operations Program Operations Engineering Construction Design Build Right of Way and Land Operating and Capital Disbursements Special Studies Local Streets and Roads Regional Arterials TOTAL Projects and Operations Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In Transfers Out TIFIA Loan Proceeds Net Financing Sources (Uses) Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses and Other Financing Sources (Uses) $ 16,529,000 86,500,000 10,821,600 3,132,500 4,832,000 4,025,500 439,900 $ 160,471,000 24,874,600 3,998,000 10,170,600 18,520,000 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,431,400 126,280,500 5,122,700 9,052,100 6,483,700 225,781,600 4,377,700 13,001,600 3,569,700 15,535,800 10,343,800 250,000 3,375,000 132,552,600 2,150,000 16,571,300 10,523,800 17,421,200 84,014,000 146,955,600 84,587,900 8,660,000 815,000 52,587,000 30,516,600 148,671,400 436,081,100 8,100,000 45,529,800 266,000 53,629,800 1,650,000 169,595,900 512,309,900 (43,315,400) (286,528,300) 32,926,800 208,805,900 (24,668,900) (217,063,800) 100,269,200 108,527,100 19,742,100 65,211,700 (266,786,200) Beginning Fund Balance 207,739,900 533,401,800 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 272,951,600 $ 266,615,600 $ 177,000,000 86,500,000 10,821,600 28,007,100 8,830,000 14,196,100 18,520,000 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,871,300 352,062,100 9,500,400 22,053,700 10,053,400 32,107,100 20,867,600 17,671,200 87,389,000 146,955,600 84,587,900 141,212,600 2,965,000 52,587,000 30,516,600 584,752,500 8,100,000 45,529,800 53,629,800 1,916,000 681,905,800 (329,843,700) 241,732,700 (241,732,700) 100,269,200 128,269,200 (201,574,500) 741,141,700 $ 539,567,200 Table 18 — Budget by Fund Type FY 2016/17 General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service FY 16/17 Enterprise TOTAL Budget Revenues Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Federal Reimbursements State Reimbursements Local Reimbursements TUMF Revenue Toll Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues Expenditures/Expenses Personnel Salaries and Benefits Professional and Support Professional Services Support Costs TOTAL Professional and Support Costs Projects and Operations Program Operations Engineering Construction Design Build Right of Way/Land Operating and Capital Disbursements Special Studies Local Streets and Roads Regio na I Arteria Is TOTAL Projects and Operations Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers In Transfers Out Debt Proceeds TI FIA Loan Proceeds Net Financing Sources (Uses) Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses and Other Financing Sources (Uses) Beginning Fund Balance ENDING FUND BALANCE 21,883,200 2,150,000 $ 3,250,000 $ 173,750,000 $ - $ 86,500,000 10,821,600 25,240,100 2,767,000 900,000 7,930,000 1,632,500 12,563,600 18,520,000 173,000 16,300 1,057,300 444,900 346,000 3,798,000 2,345,000 6,800 5,798,800 4,444,900 4,121,000 5,350,900 9,471,900 336,555,600 444,900 4,787,100 17,625,700 2,027,600 19,653,300 3,672,600 14,142,200 17,671,200 1,175,000 86,214,000 146,955,600 84,587,900 119,329,400 815,000 52,587,000 30,516,600 3,113,000 6,149,800 268,400 307,000 2,674,900 2,981,900 3,052,800 28,880,800 552,818,900 8,100,000 45,529,800 3,052,800 266,000 1,400,000 53,629,800 250,000 43,063,600 578,659,300 53,629,800 6,553,100 (37,264,800) (242,103,700) 35,845,100 150,591,100 (105,996,800) 100,269,200 444,900 (50,516,800) 29,501,900 22,656,900 (132,780,900) (2,955,000) 28,000,000 (403,300) 3,137,700 35,845,100 144,863,500 (75,279,000) 19,701,900 3,137,700 (1,419,700) (97,240,200) (74,834,100) (30,814,900) 2,734,400 7,990,400 521,256,600 134,597,700 77,297,000 $ 6,570,700 $ 424,016,400 $ 59,763,600 $ 46,482,100 $ 2,734,400 $ 177,000,000 86,500,000 10,821,600 28,007,100 8,830,000 14,196,100 18,520,000 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,871,300 352,062,100 9,500,400 22,053,700 10,053,400 32,107,100 20,867,600 17,671,200 87,389,000 146,955,600 84,587,900 141,212,600 2,965,000 52,587,000 30,516,600 584,752,500 8,100,000 45,529,800 53,629,800 1,916,000 681,905,800 (329,843,700) 241,732,700 (241,732,700) 28,000,000 100,269,200 128,269,200 (201,574,500) 741,141,700 C sla 567 Inn 19 Table 19 — Highway, Regional Arterial, and Rail Programs FY 2016/17 Description Highway engineering 91/71 interchange improvement I-15 Express Lanes Mid County Parkway SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange Riverside County - Santa Ana River Trail SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING Regional arterial engineering Various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects, including SR-79 realignment SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL ENGINEERING Rail engineering Riverside Downtown/Pedley station improvements La Sierra station improvements Perris Valley Line and other rail projects Other - Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor (details presented in Section 6.2 Rail) SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL ENGINEERING Highway construction 74/215interchange 1-215 corridor improvements (central segment)/Scott Road to Nuevo Road Pachappa overcrossing 91 Project SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange Riverside County - Santa Ana River Trail General (details presented in Section 6.3 Planning and Programming) SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION Regional arterial construction Various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects, including SR-79 realignment Various Western County Measure A regional arterial projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTION Rail construction Riverside Downtown/Pedley station improvements La Sierra station improvements Station rehabilitation Perris Valley Line and other rail projects Corona Auto Center Drive traffic signal Other - Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio Pass corridor (details presented in Section 6.2 Rail) SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION Highway design build 91 Project I-15 Express Lanes TOTAL HIGHWAY DESIGN BUILD Highway right of way and land SR-60 truck climbing lanes 60/215 East Junction HOV lane connectors 1-215 corridor improvements (central segment)/Scott Road to Nuevo Road Pachappa overcrossing Mid County Parkway SR-74 curve widening I-15 Express Lanes SR-74/1-15 to 7th Street 91/71 interchange improvement 91 Project SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange MSHCP land acquisition in Western County Riverside County - Santa Ana River Trail General SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND Regional arterial right of way and land Various Western County TUMF regional arterial projects, including SR-79 realignment SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND Rail right of way and land Perris Valley Line and other rail projects La Sierra station improvements General SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL PROGRAMS $ 50,000 750,000 11,000,000 15,000 490,000 12,305,000 4,976,200 4,976,200 65,000 55,000 20,000 250,000 390,000 $ 17,671,200 $ 20,000 5,300,000 11,070,000 16,471,200 803,000 3,800,000 1,175,000 38,639,200 381,400 33,848,700 34,230,100 1,417,800 2,709,900 2,000,000 5,942,000 250,000 2,200,000 14,519,700 $ 87,389,000 $ 125,955,600 21,000,000 $ 146,955,600 $ 1,700,000 22,000 170,000 450,000 19,500,000 337,000 4,000,000 700,000 1,552,000 46,931,100 1,700,000 3,000,000 85,000 50,500 80,197,600 2,765,300 2,765,300 1,365,000 10,000 250,000 1,625,000 $ 84,587,900 $ 336,603,700 20 PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 44 YEARS 1976-2016 Riverside County Transportation Commission Resource Estimation Commission Policy Goals Department Goals and Objectives Department Budget Development Budget Compilation Budget Review and Adoption IRCTC operations • Use of accumulated reserves for projects and programs, as necessary • Flexibility to change scope and timing of capital projects • Commence toll operations in January 2017 • Small staff with heavy use of consultants • Interfund borrowing policy, if required IStabilized sales tax and TUMF revenues • Impact on transit operations and capital project needs • Use of TUMF reserves for project expenditures • Continued economic recovery RCTC 91 Express Lanes begin anuary 2017 • Toll revenues and expenses represent six months of FY 2016/17 • Estimates derived from Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Report IFinancing needs and related costs • Final draw down of TIFIA loan proceeds for the 91 Project • Issuance of commercial paper notes for the I-15 Express Lanes project FY 2016/17 Beginning Fund Balance (7/1/2016) Revenues 352,062,100 Debt Proceeds 128,269,200 Transfers In 241,732,700 Total Estimated Sources Expenditures/Expenses (628,276,000) Debt Service (53,629,800) Transfers Out (241,732,700) Total Estimated Uses Uses Over Sources (offset by beginning fund balance) Ending Fund Balance (6/30/2017) 11" 722,064,000 (923,638,500) (201,574,500) $ 539,567,200 Measure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Intergovernmental TUMF Revenue Toll Revenue Other Revenue Investment Income Transfers In Debt Proceeds TOTAL Sources FY 15/16 $ 170,000,000 83,000,000 13,372,400 110,810,700 18,053,800 787,000 2,456,300 136,326,500 261,277,900 FY 15/16 $ 170,000,000 83,000,000 13,372,400 110,307,400 18,041,000 185,000 5,663,000 171,685,900 291,880,700 FY 16/17 Budg $ 177,000,000 86,500,000 10,821,600 51,033,200 18,520,000 3,798,000 2,518,000 1,871,300 241,732,700 128,269,200 $ 796,084,600 $ 864,135,400 $ 722,064,000 ��e \ e �� \ e 5 \ e , $ 3 5 0 $ 3 0 0 $ 2 5 0 $ 2 0 0 $ 1 5 0 $ 1 0 0 $ 5 0 a \ e ��t e P h a ���� ( 4 6 �� P h a t o , " C " ' a ` ' \ " " c " . e . ) e c \ . ) e o w e ��c . , e e a 5 S e e ��e ��e Q e ��e \ " m a c , r o c ��o r e t e �� e t a ` O O �� y K r O z J e \ c " u F Y 1 5 / 1 6 R e v i s e d B u d g e t F Y 1 5 / 1 6 P r o j e c t e d Q' F Y 1 6 / 1 7 B u d g e t FY 15/1 Revised Bu FY 15/16 Project FY 16/17 Budge Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials Capital Local Streets and Roads Commuter Assistance Debt Service Management Services Motorist Assistance Planning and Programming Public and Specialized Transit Rail Maintenance and Operations Toll Operations TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses $ 642,300,000 $ 513,480,600 50,679,000 50,679,000 3,687,300 3,737,200 53,919,900 53,612,800 9,013,600 7,952,600 5,491,200 5,492,600 7,157,800 4,460,400 118,129,500 94,385,300 26,188,500 21,309,700 $ 393,056,800 52,587,000 3,579,900 53,629,800 9,306,500 5,743,000 12,059,600 111,292,900 34,097,200 6,553,100 $ 916,566,800 $ 755,110,200 $ 681,905,800 $700 $650 $600 $550 $500 c $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- ►1_J J 61.1 1 �u t�e�\a, �°aas \ ao h��4\`e a�• e \y�ao`e •s(` �`ao00 ia,\o,°� �a�\°�� \p �a yy• 5 0` �� 5h ta' ea Qe Qe e�°tea �t���ha ��e�P oa ���oo �o��P aQ.ko� e°�a\\� a�ao �o\\O a�a� °`a\5 L°�� �`a�a �o ���a� �a�Q �ac. •�, \, a e �a� Q\a� Q\a6 X��° a\�� �\��a� La Q �a\� o FY 15/16 Revised Budget • a� IA FY 15/16 Projected LaQ\ o FY 16/17 Budget FY 15/16 Revised Budget FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Projected Budget Salaries and Benefits Professional Services Support Costs Projects and Operations Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses $ 9,499,800 17,037,000 7,269,300 824,881,800 53,919,900 3,959,000 $ 9,491,600 $ 9,500,400 15,438,400 22,053,700 5,494,400 10,053,400 670,380,800 584,752,500 53,612,800 53,629,800 692,200 1,916,000 $ 916,566,800 $ 755,110,200 $ 681,905,800 Professional Services 29% Support Costs 38% Projects and Operations 29% Debt Service 1% Capital Outlay 52% �� 2 ; r " $ 9 0 0 $ 8 0 0 $ 7 0 0 $ 6 0 0 c $ 5 0 0 $ 4 0 0 $ 3 0 0 $ 2 0 0 $ 1 0 0 $ - I I . . S a l a r i e s a n d B e n e f i t s P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s S u p p o r t C o s t s P r o j e c t s a n d O p e r a t i o n s D e b t S e r v i c e C a p i t a l O u t l a y o F Y 1 5 / 1 6 R e v i s e d B u d g e t o F Y 1 5 / 1 6 P r o j e c t e d O F Y 1 6 / 1 7 B u d g e t Continue monitoring revenues Measure A administrative salaries and benefits Funding needs for projects and transit operators Sales Tax and TUMF revenue trends Timeliness of federal and state reimbursements Open public hearing May Receive input for the proposed budget and open the public hearing i IAdapose public hearing and adopt budget June 8, 2016AL Review the final budget draft, close the public hearing, and adopt the final budget AGENDA ITEM 8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2016. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Commission's Procurement Policy Manual adopted in September 2015. The Executive Director is authorized to sign services contracts that are less than $150,000 individually and in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for supplies, equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000 individually. The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the third quarter ended March 31, 2016, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The unused capacity of single signature authority for services at March 31, 2016 is $294,000. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of March 31, 2016. Agenda item 8A 21 CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2015 The Alberts Firm Client Trust TSC2Group Connected Consulting Lamar Screenvision Direct" Settlement Agreement Integrated Communications Strategies Enhanced Public Communications Support to 91 Project Team Billboard Advertisement Operation Lifesaver SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF March 31, 2016 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT PAID AMOUNT REMAINING AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT $1,000,000.00 35,000.00 0.00 35,000.00 150,000.00 77,500.00 72,500.00 150,000.00 37,068.57 112,931.43 0,00 0,00 0-00 0-00 0-00 0-00 OCTA Interagency Agreement for Subrecipient Monitoring of SCRRA for 150,000.00 Compliance with FTA Requirements 0.00 150,000.00 Engineering Resources La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion PS&E 150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 Pepe's Towing Services 1-215 Construction FSP 11,000.00 0.00 11,000.00 Mathis Group Management Consulting 50,000.00 6,303.50 43,696.50 OCTA Interagency Agreement for 91 Corridor Improvement Project FSP Services 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AMOUNT USED AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING through March 31, 2016 706,000.00 706,000.00 $294,000.00 None Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C) N/A $- $- $- Marla Dye Theresia Trevino Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the third quarter. " These contracts were subsequently determined to be purchase orders within the procurement officer's authority. 22 AGENDA ITEM 8B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Marla Dye, Procurement Analyst Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2016/17 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the recurring contracts for Fiscal Year 2016/17; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As in previous years, the Commission annually evaluates existing contracts for professional services due to expire within the next fiscal year. These contracts may be placed on the calendar for a new procurement solicitation, allowed to expire since these contracts are no longer required, or included in the annual recurring contracts list that is subject to Commission approval. Most contracts for professional services are subject to a competitive process. This year's list of recurring contracts includes consultants that are providing unique or specialized services and working closely with staff on long-term projects. Staff desires to retain a limited number of consultants on the recurring contracts list due to the consultant's historical knowledge, unique experience, and understanding of the Commission and specific Commission projects. Under limited circumstances, staff believes it is more efficient and cost effective to retain the consultants on the recurring contracts list rather than rebidding the services at this time. Approval of the recurring contracts list will allow the Commission to continue work on existing projects without interruptions and maintain consistency. Below is a list of proposed recurring contracts for FY 2016/17, followed by a summary for each consultant supporting its inclusion on the recurring contracts list. Agenda Item 8B 23 Schedule of Recurring Contracts for FY 2016/17 Consultant Name Agreement Number Description of Services Budget FY 2015/16 Budget FY 2016/17 Dollar Change FY 16 to FY 17 AMMA Transit Planning (AMMA) 05-26-115-10 Administration support of Specialized Transit Program under Measure A and federal programs $120,000 $120,000 $0 BCA Watson Rice LLP (BCAWR) 08-19-029-15 Internal audit services for pre award and close-out audits 10,000 75,000 65,000 Bechtel Infrastructure (Bechtel) 16-31-081-00 Capital project program management services 8,190,000 6,624,000 (1,566,000) Best Best & Krieger LLP (BB&K) 07-31-164-14 General legal services 4,678,400 4,914,700 236,300 BLX Group (BLX) 11-19-104-01 Arbitrage rebate compliance services 15,000 10,000 (5,000) Connected Consulting 16-15-039-01 Community relations services 150,000 150,000 0 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. (Epic) 16-33-084-00 Support services for property management of Commission -owned properties and related contracts 539,000 571,000 32,000 Fieldman Rolapp & Associates (Fieldman) 04-19-029-09 Financial advisory services 300,000 325,000 25,000 Iteris 09-41-067-02 Operations and maintenance services for the 1E511 system 362,000 246,000 (116,000) Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Fulbright) 09-19-072-09 Disclosure counsel services 0 25,000 25,000 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) 05-19-510-10 Bond counsel services 25,000 50,000 25,000 TSC2 Group 16-14-037-01 Integrated communication strategy 150,000 195,000 45,000 U.S. Bank National Association (US Bank) N/A Trustee services for sales tax revenue bonds pursuant to master indenture agreement 16,500 16,500 0 Total $14,555,900 $13,322,200 ($1,233,700) Agenda Item 8B 24 Schedule of Recurring Contracts for Specialized Services for FY 2016/17-FY2020/21 Consultant Name Agreement Numbers Description of Services Budget FY 2015/16 Budget FY 2016/17 5-Year Contract ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation 16-24-086-00 North Main Corona station parking structure elevator maintenance $12,095 $15,200 $76,000 TransTrack Systems, Inc. (TransTrack) 08-62-005-06 End -user software license, training and support 32,000 32,000 160,000 Trillium Insight (Trillium) 16 45 091 00 Google Transit Data Feed services supporting the 1E511 system 16,000 16,000 80,000 Sunesys 11 25 132 01 Station security cameras dark fiber infrastructure 14,400 14,400 72,000 Total $74,495 $77,600 $388,000 'These are contracts with consultants providing specialized services on long-term projects at a fixed rate. The contracts do not need to be negotiated annually as service level and pricing are not expected to change during the period of performance. Staff desires to enter into a five-year agreement with each of these consultants for the aggregate amount shown in the Budget FY 2016/17 area above. AMMA Transit Planning In February 2007, AMMA was selected under a competitive procurement process to provide consulting services for the development and implementation of the Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan), as well as the required updates of the Coordinated Plan. AMMA also guides staff regarding the grant application process for the Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit program, the Commission's Annual Countywide Performance Report, the Commission's Title VI program, and the Citizens Advisory Committee processes. Additionally, AMMA advises staff regarding the management of operator reporting for the current specialized transit call for projects and assists in the development of the application and eligibility guidelines for future specialized transit call for projects. AMMA also assists in coordinating unmet transit needs and community input meetings. BCA Watson Rice LLP In October 2007, the Commission selected Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. (now BCAWR) as one of the firms to perform on -call internal audit services, including audits related to mandated pre -award audits and contract close-outs, as well as other reviews and assistance on an as needed basis. The agreement, which the term was for a five-year period, was extended by the Commission for an additional year at its October 2012 Commission meeting. BCAWR is the sole on -call internal audit services firm for the Commission at this time, and it has primarily performed the pre -award and close-out audits. While the requirement for such audits was not significant in recent years, staff recommends the Commission retain BCAWR through Agenda Item 8B 25 June 30, 2017, as the need for such audits is expected to increase in FY 2016/17 as a result of anticipated new procurements, reviews of proposed overhead rate revisions for existing agreements, and grant close-outs. BCAWR performed these audits in a timely and satisfactory manner. Bechtel Infrastructure The Bechtel contract for FY 2016/17 reflects a decrease from last year, related to the completion of construction of the following projects: Interstate 215 central, State Route 74 curve widening, 1-215 bi-county high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, 74/215 interchange (plant establishment period), SR-91 HOV lanes, and the Riverside Downtown Operations Control Center. Bechtel will continue to provide staff support on the Commission's larger projects, including the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project), the 1-15 Express Lanes project and the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. Bechtel is also continuing program management and construction management activities of highway and rail projects for the 2009 Measure A program, as well as the wrap up of delivery for the remaining project in the 1989 Measure A program. Bechtel possesses the knowledge and background history of the Commission's capital works program, which is necessary to deliver the Commission's Measure A projects. The flexibility of obtaining additional support from Bechtel as needed for specific project requirements is also important and avoids the need to increase Commission staff. Best Best & Krieger LLP The FY 2016/17 contract for BB&K reflects a net increase of 5 percent in legal costs compared to the amended FY 2015/16 contract, primarily related to litigation offset and the continued need for specialized legal services for certain projects. A high level of general legal services is generally required from BB&K for highway and rail capital project activities, especially right of way, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) projects. BB&K also provides support related to procurements and contract development. The Commission engaged other legal firms for specific matters involving potential conflicts of interest, as well as other specialized legal services. BLX Group In 2007, the Commission engaged BLX to perform arbitrage rebate compliance services for sales tax revenue debt issued under the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A, as required by the Internal Revenue Service and the tax certificates executed for each debt issue. Initially, this included commercial paper notes and sales tax revenue bonds that were issued. As a result of the 91 Project financing in 2013, arbitrage calculations are also required for the toll revenue bonds issued. In order to ensure the Commission is complying with the complex arbitrage rebate regulations, it elected to have the required calculations performed more frequently than the minimum reporting requirements during the life of each debt issue. Accordingly, BLX maintains historical information and calculations that are considered in subsequent arbitrage rebate calculations. The agreement with BLX may be terminated by either party upon written Agenda Item 8B 26 notice; however, staff determined it would be more efficient and cost effective to continue the contract. Furthermore, BLX is affiliated with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, which results in additional efficiencies related to immediate access to bond documents and key staff. Connected Consulting In November 2015, Connected Consulting was hired pursuant to the Executive Director's single signature agreement authority to provide community relations consulting services regarding the 91 Project. The primary focus at the time of the procurement was to assist in public communications, develop and oversee a community based task force, and assist in the dissemination of social media communication. Staff recommends the extension of this contract at the same monthly contract rate for a full year to continue ongoing activities and assist with communication -related tasks for the opening of the 91 Project in early 2017. Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Due to its accumulated knowledge and development of various property management projects, resources, and databases associated with the multitude of Commission -owned properties, including but not limited to those along the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL), staff determined Epic can most efficiently and cost effectively provide property management services. The scope of services for FY 2016/17 includes upgrading the remaining private use and utility licenses to current Commission terms in order to minimize liability risks; coordinating and assisting with activities related to the issuance of new licenses, amendments to existing licenses or facility upgrades; following up on delinquent rent payments and tracking insurance certifications, as requested by staff; determining all easement locations and requesting abandonment of unused easements; maintaining and updating a database and correlated mapping of the Commission's property and contract information; ensuring possession of title policies for all Commission -owned property; ensuring compliance with federal excess land requirements; and resolving complex title issues. Epic will also proactively perform regular site visits to all properties to identify and resolve maintenance and repair issues such as weed abatement, removal of debris and illegal occupants, as well as identify encroachments such as illegal parking or the installation of facilities without a license. Although many of the property management tasks have been completed and only require on -going maintenance and review, additional work will be required to maintain the property for the PVL service. Therefore, the contract fees have increased 6 percent from the prior year. Fieldman Rolapp & Associates Fieldman was selected as the Commission's financial advisor in late 2003, following a competitive procurement process, and provided financial advisory services on general finance matters and specific financing transactions related to the 2009 Measure A program and the toll program. Fieldman played a significant role in the 91 Project financing activities that achieved financial close in early July 2013. Fieldman continues to provide additional support related to the annual update of the financial model and financial plan required by the Transportation Agenda Item 8B 27 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan agreement, as well as other implementation matters related to the 91 Project financing. For the I-15 Express Lanes project, Fieldman is once again serving a key role in the development of a plan of finance. As a result of Fieldman's knowledge and understanding of the Commission and the TIFIA loan process, staff determined it would be more efficient and cost effective for continuity purposes to retain Fieldman during FY 2016/17 primarily for financial advisory services related to the 91 Project and 1-15 Express Lanes project. Iteris. Inc. Iteris was awarded a sole source agreement for operations and maintenance services of the Inland Empire 511 (IE511) system as part of the original 1E511 implementation plan approved by the Commission in May 2009. The Iteris components of the system are comprised of a browser -based traffic map and an interactive voice response telephone system. Iteris aggregates and maintains various data feeds to provide motorists with access to real-time freeway travel information and incident information on Southern California highways via the telephone service by dialing 511 or accessing the map on the companion website (www.ie511.org) or mobile application. Last year, the system averaged nearly 40,000 web visits and 21,000 phone calls per month. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is currently procuring a 511 solution with regional potential and is slated to go live in 2017. Staff intends to provide a recommendation to the Commission to: 1) partner with and leverage Metro's 511 system; or 2) conduct a competitive procurement for 1E511 operations and maintenance services within the next fiscal year. Until that recommendation is made, staff recommends the Commission retain Iteris through June 30, 2017. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Orrick was selected as bond counsel in late 2004, following a competitive procurement process, and has provided bond counsel services in connection with the financings and other matters related to the 2009 Measure A program, including the 91 Project. Orrick has a high level understanding of the Commission's 2009 Measure A program and related sales tax financings as well as the complex toll supported debt agreements. It also has significant experience with other transportation agencies, especially self-help counties and TIFIA loan borrowers. In its role as bond counsel, Orrick provided legal advice during FY 2015/16 regarding federal tax regulations in connection with procurement and financing considerations related to the 1-15 Express Lanes project, and similar services may be expected in FY 2016/17. Accordingly, staff determined it would be more efficient and cost effective to continue to retain Orrick in connection with sales tax and toll program financings. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP In July 2009, the Commission awarded a professional services agreement to Fulbright for disclosure counsel services through a competitive procurement in connection with the Commission's 2009 Bond issuance. The agreement has been periodically amended for the Agenda Item 88 28 Commission's subsequent debt transactions, including the financing for the 91 Project. Staff has been satisfied with Fulbright's level of service and recommends Fulbright's agreement be amended to include disclosure counsel services that may be required during FY 2016/17 in connection with the opening and operation of the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes and the development of the 1-15 Express Lanes project financing. TSCZ Group In November 2015, the Commission entered into a contract with TSCZ Group pursuant to the Executive Director's single signature agreement authority to develop an integrated communication strategy for the organization. The original impetus for the procurement was to address pressing communication issues related to the 91 Project along with the direction that its work would expand to address all of the Commission's communication efforts. The intent for the scope of work was for a continuation through FY 2016/17 at the same monthly contract rate. U.S. Bank National Association US Bank served as trustee for the sales tax financings since the inception of the 1989 Measure A program; the current US Bank represents mergers, acquisitions, and name changes dating back to the 1990s. As trustee and in accordance with the debt agreements, US Bank intercepts the Measure A sales tax receipts from the State Board of Equalization in order to withhold amounts required for debt service prior to releasing remaining funds to the Commission. In February 2005 following a competitive procurement, the Commission approved agreements with US Bank to serve as the trustee and the issuing and paying agent for the commercial paper program related to interim financing for the 2009 Measure A program. When the Commission commenced 2009 Measure A program long-term debt financings prior to the July 2009 start of the new Measure A, the Commission continued to use US Bank as trustee for the 2009 Measure A program. The master and supplemental indentures for the commercial paper program and the sales tax bonds are agreements between the Commission and US Bank through the life of the debt; any removal or resignation of the trustee requires adhering to specific procedures described in the master indenture. Staff has been satisfied with US Bank's level of service and recommends continuation of US Bank's role as trustee for the sales tax financings and as issuing and paying agent for the commercial paper program. The FY 2016/17 fees are comparable to current year fees. Specialized Services on Long -Term Projects for Multiple Year Contracts ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation Since 2013, ThyssenKrupp provided elevator maintenance services for the North Main Corona Station parking structure elevators. These services include a comprehensive monthly preventative maintenance plan, full coverage parts replacement, after hours service requests and remote monitoring. Due to issues regarding warranty coverage and certain proprietary Agenda Item 8B 29 elevator controls, the Commission's on -call elevator service contractors are not able to service and repair ThyssenKrupp elevators. This service contract is imperative in order to provide safe and reliable elevator service to the North Main Corona Station parking structure. TransTrack In December 2005, the Commission approved a sole source agreement with TransTrack for the Transit Performance Manager software application implementation and training package for a total amount of $52,000. The agreement included a provision that the license may be renewed for an additional year for an extension of the annual service, maintenance fees, training and support. The public operators use this software to consolidate and integrate their operations and performance data in the TransTrack system, which enables the Commission and operators to retrieve real-time operation information and timely performance reports. Major accomplishments include additional customized reports to support the Commission's Annual Countywide State of Public Transit Report. TransTrack continues to be an important tool in assisting Commission staff to review the transit operators' performance to ensure compliance with the farebox recovery ratio. During the annual preparation of Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), the transit operators use the customized reports to complete required SRTP reports. Trillium Insight, Inc. Trillium was the firm used for the implementation of transit data feeds between local transit agencies and Google as part of the 1E511 launch. Trillium publishes general transit feed specifications formatted data for selected Riverside County transit agencies; submits data to Google; performs validations; and coordinates among Google, transit agencies, and the Commission to integrate transit data into Google maps. The transit operators use and have become familiar with the particular Google transit feed tool developed by Trillium to help streamline the process and ensure an accurate and smooth data feed which ultimately benefits users of the Google and 1E511 transit itinerary function. Sunesys The Commission invested in a network of security cameras at the five commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center. All cameras are connected to the Riverside Downtown Operations Control Center (RDOCC) via fiber optic lines (primarily through Caltrans) except for the Pedley Station. The Pedley Station is connected to the RDOCC via a dark fiber infrastructure provided by Sunesys. This contract with Sunesys is necessary to continue the reliable transmission of security camera data and information to the RDOCC related to the Pedley Station. Agenda Item 8B 30 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18+ Amount: $13,399,800 $ 310,400 Source of Funds: Measure A, TDA, TUMF, Interest, and Other Reimbursements Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: Various Fiscal Procedures Approved: \j/Xl,„44 Date: 04/19/2016 Agenda Item 8B 31 AGENDA ITEM 8C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Audit Services for the Transportation Development Act Claimants Measure A Recipients and BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 16-19-055-00 to Conrad LLP (Conrad) for the provision of audit services for the Eastern Riverside County (Eastern County) Measure A local streets and roads recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $274,225, plus a contingency amount of $27,775, for a total amount not to exceed $302,000; 2) Award Agreement No. 16-19-089-00 to Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP (MGO) for the provision of audit services for the Western Riverside County (Western County) Measure A local streets and roads recipients and TDA claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $641,490, plus a contingency amount of $64,510, for a total amount not to exceed $706,000; 3) Award Agreement No. 16-19-090-00 to BCA Watson Rice LLP (BCAWR) for the provision of audit services for the Western County Measure A specialized transit recipients for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $235,140, plus a contingency amount of $23,860, for a total amount not to exceed $259,000; 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The TDA requires annual financial and compliance audits of TDA claimants in the county receiving allocations for bicycle and pedestrian projects and public transit. The 2009 Measure A requires audits of the city and county recipients of local streets and roads funds, and the Commission elected to obtain audits of Western County Measure A specialized transit recipients in order to determine compliance with grant agreements. In previous years, the city Agenda Item 8C 32 of Beaumont, Riverside Transit Agency, and SunLine Transit Agency elected to procure their audits and submit the final reports to the Commission. Accordingly, these three agencies are not included in the Commission's scope of audit services for the Measure A recipients and TDA claimants. In May 2011, the Commission approved the selection of Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, PC (TCBA) and MGO to perform audit services, including agreed -upon procedures, for the Measure A recipients and TDA claimants in the Western County and Eastern County (Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley), respectively, for an initial three-year term and two additional one-year option periods. TCBA informed the Commission of a change in the name of the firm to Bazilio Cobb Associates, PC in 2012, and of an acquisition and merger, which resulted in a name change to BCAWR in 2014. The full term of the BCAWR and MGO contracts expired in March with the conclusion of the FY 2014/15 audits. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm, personnel and the ability to respond to the Commission's needs for audit services for the Measure A recipients and TDA claimants as set forth under the terms of the Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 16-19-055-00. RFP No. 16-19-055-00 for audit services for the Measure A recipients and TDA claimants was released by staff on March 3, 2016. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 166 firms, 17 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 15 firms not located in Riverside County downloaded the RFP. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the March 15 clarification deadline date. Seven firms — BCAWR (Torrance); Conrad (Lake Forest); Eadie & Payne (Redlands); Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP (Brea); MGO (Newport Beach); Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP (San Bernardino); and Vasquez & Company LLP (Los Angeles); — submitted responsive and responsible proposals prior to the March 31, 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the 7 firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee short listed and invited three firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the short listed firms — BCAWR; Conrad; and MGO — were conducted on April 14. As a result of the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to the three short-listed firms to perform audit services for the Measure A recipients and TDA claimants, as follows: Agenda Item 8C 33 " C o n r a d : E a s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s r e c i p i e n t s ; T D A c l a i m a n t s ; " M G O : W e s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s r e c i p i e n t s ; T D A c l a i m a n t s ; a n d " B C A W R : W e s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A s p e c i a l i z e d t r a n s i t r e c i p i e n t s . S t a f f r e c o m m e n d s e a c h a g r e e m e n t b e a u t h o r i z e d f o r a t h r e e - y e a r t e r m , w i t h t w o o n e - y e a r o p t i o n s t o e x t e n d e a c h a g r e e m e n t . T h e s e f i r m s e a r n e d t h e h i g h e s t t o t a l e v a l u a t i o n s c o r e s . T h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e d e t e r m i n e d t h e t h r e e f i r m s w e r e q u a l i f i e d t o p e r f o r m t h e a u d i t s e r v i c e s a n d h a d a n a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s c o p e a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s r e l a t e d t o t h e M e a s u r e A a n d T D A a u d i t s e r v i c e s . S t a f f r e q u e s t e d b e s t a n d f i n a l o f f e r s f r o m e a c h f i r m b a s e d o n s e g r e g a t i o n o f t h e w o r k i n t h r e e g r o u p s : W e s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s r e c i p i e n t s a n d T D A c l a i m a n t s ; W e s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A s p e c i a l i z e d t r a n s i t r e c i p i e n t s ; a n d E a s t e r n C o u n t y M e a s u r e A l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s r e c i p i e n t s a n d T D A c l a i m a n t s . T h e a g g r e g a t e v a l u e o f t h e t h r e e a g r e e m e n t s f o r a m a x i m u m f i v e - y e a r c o n t r a c t p e r i o d i s i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 1 , 1 5 0 , 8 5 5 , p l u s a c o n t i n g e n c y o f $ 1 1 6 , 1 4 5 , f o r a t o t a l a m o u n t n o t t o e x c e e d $ 1 , 2 6 7 , 0 0 0 , a s s u m m a r i z e d b e l o w . A u t h o r i z e d A g r e e m e n t C o n t i n g e n c y T o t a l A u t h o r i z a t i o n C o n r a d $ 2 7 4 , 2 2 5 $ 2 7 , 7 7 5 $ 3 0 2 , 0 0 0 M G O 6 4 1 , 4 9 0 6 4 , 5 1 0 7 0 6 , 0 0 0 B C A W R 2 3 5 , 1 4 0 2 3 , 8 6 0 2 5 9 , 0 0 0 T o t a l $ 1 , 1 5 0 , 8 5 5 $ 1 1 6 , 1 4 5 $ 1 , 2 6 7 , 0 0 0 T h e c o n t i n g e n c y i s r e c o m m e n d e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l r e c i p i e n t s o r c l a i m a n t s t h a t m a y b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s c o p e o f w o r k d u r i n g t h e t e r m o f t h e a g r e e m e n t s . D u e t o t h e v o l u m e o f w o r k t o b e p e r f o r m e d a n d t h e n u m b e r o f r e p o r t s t o b e i s s u e d , t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e d e c i d e d t o d i v i d e t h e a u d i t s e r v i c e s b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e f i r m s i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h e t i m e l y c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e a u d i t s a n d a g r e e d - u p o n p r o c e d u r e s . B a s e d o n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e r e q u i r e d a u d i t s e r v i c e s , s t a f f r e c o m m e n d s a p p r o v a l o f t h e s e t h r e e a u d i t f i r m s f o r c o n t r a c t s w i t h i n i t i a l t h r e e - y e a r t e r m s a n d t w o o n e - y e a r o p t i o n s t o e x t e n d t h e t e r m . T h e F i s c a l Y e a r 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 b u d g e t t o b e a p p r o v e d a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s J u n e 2 0 1 6 m e e t i n g i n c l u d e s t h e s e a u d i t s e r v i c e e x p e n d i t u r e s . T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s s t a n d a r d f o r m p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s a g r e e m e n t w i l l b e e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h t h e c o n s u l t a n t s s u b j e c t t o a n y c h a n g e s a p p r o v e d b y t h e E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , a n d p u r s u a n t t o l e g a l c o u n s e l r e v i e w . S t a f f o v e r s i g h t o f t h e c o n t r a c t s w i l l b e c o n d u c t e d t o m a x i m i z e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e c o n s u l t a n t s a n d t o m i n i m i z e c o s t s t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n . A g e n d a I t e m 8 C 3 4 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Yes N/A Year: FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18+ Amount: $60,000 250,000 957,000 Source of Funds: Measure A, Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 001001 65401 00000 0002 101 19 65401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \I-Au-4o Date: 04/18/2016 Attachment: Standard Form On -Call Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8C 35 Agreement No. 16-19-055-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE MEASURE A RECIPIENTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMANTS WITH j CONSULTANT ] 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and [ NAME OF FIRM 1 ("Consultant"), a [ LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT e.g., CORPORATION j. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing audit services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants ("Project") as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 36 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to May 31, 2019, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Commission, at its sole discretion, may extend this Agreement for two (2) additional one (1) year period. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates Its Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 37 performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates INSERT NAME OR TITLE ], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 38 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 39 performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. 3.12.4Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (0 Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 40 (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. 0) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. 0) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set forth hereunder. (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 41 Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 42 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed [ INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT 1 (V INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT j) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 43 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 44 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: Attn : COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 45 3.18.2Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 46 name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 47 to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 48 3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi- sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.30.1 DIR Registration. Effective March 1, 2015, if the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. If applicable, Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 49 shall be Consultant's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 50 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 51 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 52 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE MEASURE A RECIPIENTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMANTS WITH [ CONSULTANT 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] By: By: Scott Matas Chairman Signature Name Title Approved as to Form: Attest: By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary General Counsel A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above referenced persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 53 EXHIBIT „A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT „B" - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT „C„ - COMPENSATION 17336.00000\8752982.2 Exhibit 54 AGENDA ITEM 8D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Express Lanes Privacy Policy WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution 16-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Express Lanes Privacy Policy". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In early 2017, the Commission will begin operating the 91 Express Lanes jointly with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) employing an electronic toll collection system. The Commission plans on operating additional express lanes, including the Interstate 15 Express Lanes in the near future. During the operation of the express lanes, the Commission and its contractors will be in possession of personally identifiable information (PII) for people that use the express lanes toll facilities. In order to protect the privacy of express lanes customer data and to comply with current law, it is necessary for the Commission to adopt a privacy policy. Section 31490 of the Streets and Highways Code was amended in 2010 requiring toll operators who employ electronic toll collection systems to adopt a privacy policy. The amended code establishes guidelines related to the collection and use of PII as well as the method of communicating the privacy policy to toll facility users. The attached resolution establishes a privacy policy for the 91 Express Lanes and allows for future amendment of the policy with the addition of future toll facilities. The attached privacy policy is closely aligned with the privacy policy currently in place for the 91 Express Lanes as provided by the OCTA. The Commission and OCTA will be jointly operating the 91 Express Lanes and sharing the existing and future customers. As such, it is necessary that the privacy policy in use on the 91 Express Lanes incorporate both agencies and be adopted by both as a common privacy policy. Agenda Item 8D 55 The privacy policy, as drafted, complies with current law and will serve to inform users of Commission -operated toll facilities of the privacy policy as it relates to their PII. The policy will serve to guide the processes and actions of the Commission and its contractors while working with PII. Prior to the commencement of the operation of the Commission's first toll facility, the 91 Express Lanes, it is both required by law and prudent the Commission adopt a privacy policy to protect the privacy of people that use the 91 Express Lanes facility. Resolution 16-008 provides for updates to the proposed privacy policy to conform to changes in law, changes in operational conditions, or the addition of future toll facilities. There is no fiscal impact related to the privacy policy. Attachment: Resolution No. 16-008 Agenda Item 8D 56 RESOLUTION NO. 16-008 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE EXPRESS LANES PRIVACY POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") will soon begin operation of an Express Lane toll facility and plans to operate future Express Lane toll facilities; WHEREAS, the Express Lanes will employ electronic toll collection systems; WHEREAS, the Commission and certain of its contractors will be in possession of personally identifiable information for people that use the Express Lanes toll facilities; WHEREAS, the current law requires a transportation agency that employs an electronic toll collection system to establish a privacy policy regarding the collection and use of personally identifiable information; WHEREAS, the current law mandates the content of the privacy policy and the method of communicating it to people who use the Express Lanes; WHEREAS, the proposed privacy policy for the 91 Express Lanes, which is in accordance with current law, is attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A", and is incorporated herein by reference ("Privacy Policy"); WHEREAS, the Commission anticipates the operation of additional Express Lanes, and it is the intent that the privacy policy will be amended by the inclusion of additional exhibits for future Express Lanes toll facilities; WHEREAS, the Commission and its contractors shall be required to adhere to the procedures included in the Privacy Policy; and WHEREAS, the Commission shall retain the authority to amend the Privacy Policy as necessary to respond to any changes in law. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution by reference as though fully set forth herein. 2. The Board of Commissioners hereby adopts the Privacy Policy. 57 3. The Privacy Policy shall govern the collection and use of personally identifiable information collected by the Commission and its contractor(s) as part of the operation of Express Lanes toll facilities. 4. The Privacy Policy may, as directed by the Executive Director of the Commission, and without further action of the Board of Commissioners, be amended to include specific reference to future Express Lane toll facilities. 5. The Board of Commissioners declares its intent that should any court of competent jurisdiction declare any part or provision of the Privacy Policy illegal or unenforceable, then such part or provision shall be severed from the Privacy Policy and the remaining parts and provisions shall be enforced in accordance with their terms. 6. This resolution shall be effective as of the date of its adoption by the Board of Commissioners. Passed, approved and adopted this 11th day of May, 2016. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Scott Matas, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 58 EXHIBIT "A" 91 EXPRESS LANES PRIVACY POLICY Our Privacy Policy: We are committed to safeguarding the integrity and confidentiality of the personally identifiable information of the people who use the Express Lanes. Personally identifiable information is any information that identifies or describes a person, including, but not limited to, your name, address, telephone number, billing address, e-mail address, credit card number and expiration date, bank account information, tracking information for checks or money orders, license plate numbers, photographs of license plates, and travel data (referred to in this Privacy Policy as "Personal Information"). We recognize the need for reasonable control of Personal Information. We will not sell, rent, lease, trade, market, exchange, distribute or disclose your Personal Information to, or with, third parties other than as disclosed in this Privacy Policy. This Privacy Policy is incorporated into the terms of your account agreement with the Express Lanes. Certain Instances of Permitted Disclosure of Your Information: We may use third party service providers to facilitate our services, and, to the extent necessary for that purpose, we may disclose your Personal Information to them. For example, we will be disclosing your credit card information and credit card payments to our credit card processing providers. Personal Information will also be provided to contractors who process toll violation notices and to enforce toll requirements. We may have to disclose Personal Information if we are required to do so by law, such as to the government or third parties pursuant to a court order or other similar circumstances. Absent a written certification that waiting for a warrant would be detrimental to an investigation or expose a law enforcement officer to danger, we will not provide Personal Information requested by a law enforcement agency without a search warrant or other similar court order. We may disclose information about you to our service providers, as we believe necessary or appropriate in connection with investigations of activities that could expose us to liability, including investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringement, piracy, or other similar activities. We may aggregate information about you and your use of our services with information about others and we may disclose such information in the aggregate to the companies that provide our funding, technology and corporate expertise, or our advertisers, analysts, alliance partners, or service providers. Aggregate information may also be publically released in reports presented to the board of directors of the Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA") and/or Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") or their operating partners, who ultimately oversee the operations of the Express Lanes. 59 For our records, we may retain original and updated information for business reasons related to our services. These business reasons include technical constraints, dispute resolution, troubleshooting, agreement enforcement, and standard record keeping. Except for basic account information such as your name, credit card number or other payment information, billing address, and vehicle information which is required to perform account functions such as billing, account settlement, or enforcement activities, we will not retain your Personal Information for more than four years and six months after the closure of each billing cycle, provided that all tolls and/or toll violations assessed during that billing cycle have been paid or otherwise resolved. We will take every effort, within practical business and cost constraints, to purge your Personal Information within four years and six months after the date that your account with the Express Lanes is closed or terminated. Information deemed reasonably necessary for collection and/or enforcement of unpaid tolls and/or toll violation penalties will not be purged unless and until those issues are resolved. We may also disclose and transfer your Personal Information in the event that some or all of the assets of the Express Lanes are sold or otherwise transferred, or in the unlikely event of a reorganization of OCTA or RCTC or their operating partners. Changes in the Privacy Policy: OCTA and RCTC reserve the right to update, modify, or rescind this Privacy Policy from time to time and in a manner consistent with state law. We will notify you in writing of any material change in this Privacy Policy before that change goes into effect. If there is a material change in this Privacy Policy, the change will be reflected in the policy posted on our website. You will also receive written notice with one or more of your account statements. How to Contact Us: If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please write to: 91 Express Lanes 180 N. Riverview Drive, Suite 200 Anaheim, CA 92808 or contact us online at www.91expresslanes.com. Changing Your Personal Information: If you wish to review your Personal Information, you may do so by contacting the 91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center at 1(800) 600-9191 or by logging onto your account at www.91expresslanes.com. You may request changes to your Personal Information by contacting the Customer Service Center. Effective Date of Privacy Policy: This policy shall be effective as of May 11, 2016. 60 AGENDA ITEM 8E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Certifying the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No 16-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion Project and Approving the Project"; and 2) Approve the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The La Sierra commuter rail station was constructed by five separate construction projects, starting in 1995 and finishing in 2003 with completion of the existing parking lot. The existing parking consists of 1,055 parking spaces, which includes 25 ADA spaces, 25 Rideshare spaces, and one bus bay. Daily during the work week, the parking lot reaches 95 percent capacity. In April 2009, the Commission approved an amendment to Agreement No. 02-33-029 with Engineering Resources of Southern California for design services for an expansion of the parking lot into the adjacent 4.6 acre Commission -owned parcel. A preliminary design was then completed. As part of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project's (91 Project) efforts to obtain a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan, a multimodal commitment for express bus service became a requirement of the 91 Project. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) agreed to provide the new service, and the preferred location for originating the route is the La Sierra Station, just east of the entry point to the 91 Express Lanes. Agenda Item 8E 61 DISCUSSION: Commission staff proposes to expand the parking lot at the La Sierra Station to provide the origination point for the express bus service, utilizing the preliminary design prepared by Engineering Resources of Southern California. The expanded facility would also support a transfer location for the Orange County Transportation Authority/RTA (OCTA/RTA) Commuter Route to Orange County. Under CEQA, an initial study (IS) is prepared to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on information in the IS, if any impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared. In June 2015, a task order was issued under the Commission's on -call environmental services to HDR Engineering, Inc. to prepare an IS/MND and supporting technical studies (biological, cultural, Native American coordination, paleontology, hazardous waste, and traffic) to comply with CEQA. On March 4, 2016, an ad was published in local newspapers (Press Enterprise and La Prensa) informing the public of the proposed project and the start of a 30 day review and comment period on the IS/MND. Also on the same day, the notice of completion and environmental document transmittal was filed with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. This began a 30 day public review and comment period that ended April 4, 2016. The Commission received no letters or comments on the MND. The project is currently under review with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). It is anticipated the FTA will determine the project is categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act. The project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Station for both regional and commuter rail and bus passengers by providing approximately 513 additional parking spaces, six bus bays for RTA service, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small storage facility and restroom facility for the transit operators and station security personnel. The total project construction cost is estimated at $2.5 million. The funding for the project is comprised of proceeds from the sale of two excess properties that were purchased using federal funds in 2003 as part of a larger parcel for the La Sierra Station. On May 8, 2015, the FTA concurred that the sale proceeds can be applied toward transit -related capital projects, specifically for the expansion of the La Sierra Station bus/park and ride parking lot. NEXT STEPS: Once the IS/MND is adopted and approved, staff will file a notice of determination with the County Clerk. This starts a 30 day statute of limitations on court challenges to project approval under CEQA. Staff will then move forward with completion of project design. There is no financial impact for approval of the IS/MND. Future actions to approve the award of Agenda Item 8E 62 construction management services is anticipated by the end of summer 2016 followed by the construction contract award in early 2017. Construction completion is expected during summer 2017. Attachment: 1) Resolution No. 16-009 and Exhibit A (CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan) 2) La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion IS/MND — Posted on the Commission Website Agenda Item 8E 63 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 16-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE LA SIERRA STATION PROJECT PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND APPROVING THE P ROJ ECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) proposed to expand the La Sierra Commuter Rail Station parking lot to add about 513 additional parking spaces, six (6) bus bays, a signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, a small storage building, and a restroom facility on 4.69 acres of land owned by the Commission located on the adjacent vacant lot east of the existing La Sierra Rail Station (Project); and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Commission is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the Commission evaluated the proposed Project by preparing an Initial Study to determine whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, the Commission determined that any impacts of the Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, because those impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level, the Commission determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21064.5 and 21080(c), State CEQA Guidelines section 15070 et seq; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15072(d), and in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15072(g), on April 4, 2016 the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted by the Clerk for the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at Commission's office at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15073, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day review period from March 4, 2016 through April 4, 2016; and 64 WHEREAS, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the Commission in connection with the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, as well as feasible mitigation measures, have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Commission Board pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2016, the Commission gave public notice of the Commission's public hearing on the Project by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted the public notice at Commission's office; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a duly -noticed public hearing on April 25, 2016, to consider the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at the Commission public hearing, members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Commission has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to, all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, while minor revisions have been made to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Commission and no additional information submitted to the Commission have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration or additional environmental review of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 65 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. As the decision -making body for the Project, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, comments received, and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project. The Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Based on the whole record before it, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, the administrative record and all other written and oral evidence presented to the Commission, the Commission finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Initial Study and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in any significant environmental impacts. The Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission. SECTION 4. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project. SECTION 5. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 6. APPROVAL The Commission hereby approves and adopts the Project. SECTION 7. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of approval of the Project. SECTION 8. WILDLIFE RESOURCES. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 711.4(c), all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a filing fee for each proposed project, as specified in subdivision 711.4(d) for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends unless a "no effect" finding is made by the California Department of Fish and Game. This fee is due and payable as 66 a condition precedent to the County Clerk's filing of a Notice of Determination. SECTION 9. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Commission's office at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA 92501. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 10. EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION. The Chair of the Commission Board shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Board shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April 2015. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Scott Matas, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 67 EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM 68 ATTACHMENT 2 FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LA SIERRA METROLINK PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016031016) Prepared By: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California 92501 Mini Mo. Riverside County Transportation Commission April 2016 LA SIERRA METROLINK PARKING LOT EXPANSION FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUMMARY 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California (Figure 1). The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot (Figure 2). The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. The proposed project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site (Figure 3). Additional work/features include: • Site grading; • Asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping; • Curb and gutter; • Concrete planter curbs; • Wrought iron fencing; • Landscaping and irrigation; • LED marquee lighting; • Storm drain facilities; • Benches and trash receptacles; • Information kiosk; and, • Restroom facility for use by RTA and site security personnel Construction of the project is anticipated to take approximately 32 weeks. Grading, asphalt and concrete placement will require 18 weeks of construction. The project site would require about 29,746 cubic yards of fill, 30,479 cubic yards of cut and 733 cubic yards of export to bring the site elevation to the same level as the adjacent parking lot. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed along Indiana Avenue frontage and within the parking lot. Concrete curb stops are proposed at the end of each row of parking spaces. Sidewalks would be provided for pedestrians walking to and from the proposed bus bays. A new driveway approach would be constructed at the northeastern most corner of the site and would wrap along the project site's eastern and northern boundary to connect to the proposed bus bays. Buses accessing the site would do so through one of two ingress points along Indiana Avenue and would exit the site via the to be signalized existing La Sierra Station/Indiana Avenue intersection. A wrought iron fence would be installed along the northern most boundary of the site to provide separation between the existing rail tracks and the proposed bus shelter areas; and the southernmost boundary along Indiana Avenue. 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS As defined by Section 15063 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining the nature and extent of any required environmental analysis and review. This Initial Study analyzed the potential site -specific impacts of the proposed project with regard to 18 environmental topics, listed below: - Aesthetics - Agriculture and Forestry Resources - Air Quality - Biological Resources - Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality 1.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES - Land Use / Planning - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population / Housing - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation / Traffic - Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on the analysis presented in this Initial Study, it was determined that this project would not result in any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. For the following environmental topic areas, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Biological Resources. The burrowing owl is a highly mobile species that has the potential to subsequently occupy any suitable burrows within the project site. The proposed project site also supports foraging and nesting habitat for raptors and other avian species. Implementation of Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) B1O-01 (pre -construction survey for BUOW) and B1O-02 (requires construction to occur outside of the bird breeding season) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Cultural Resources. There is a potential for project -related construction to impact unknown or previously unrecorded cultural resources. MM CUL-01 requires tribal monitoring during grading/excavation activities and a stop -work provision to ensure protection of any inadvertently discovered archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources during construction of the project. MM CUL-02 provides for the recovery procedure in the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are unearthed during construction. Implementation of MM CUL-01 and CUL-02 would reduce the potential for impacting archaeological, tribal, and paleontological cultural resources to a less than significant level. Traffic/Transportation. The La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection would be impacted during the p.m. peak hour during opening year. However, implementation of improvements at the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection as described in MM TRAF-01 would result in an improvement of seconds of delay at the impacted intersection. In addition, as part of the project design features, a new signal at the access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue will be installed. Implementation of MM TRAF-01 and the proposed traffic signal would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 2 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project is provided in Appendix A. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This Initial Study and Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of RCTC; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law. RCTC is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for the project. In accordance with CEQA, the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period beginning March 4, 2016 and ending on April 4, 2016. During this timeframe, the document was available for review by various Federal, State, regional, and local agencies as well as by interested organizations and individuals. 1.5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE No comment letters were received during the public review and comment period for the proposed project. Documentation received from the State Clearinghouse acknowledging the end of the public review and comment period is provided in Appendix B. A copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided in Appendix C. 3 Attachments Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES Regional Location Project Location Map Conceptual Site Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse Documentation Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Upland •Sum Narrood r11,10 Alta Loma Grapeland -->""' Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga . Ontario Silverado Guasti Champagne Norco Corona Pepper Corner Etiwanda Fontana r— •--..ir Bfooniington pecfezvill e BERNARDINO COUNT RIVERSIDE COUNTY Sunnysiope ay. Ennis! Ormand Mira Loma Home Gardens El Cerrito Glen Avon Rubidoux Padley Arfanza i rlington Riverside Canyon Crest Hei\\ Lemona , �Helvedere Heights Pachappa 1 Casa Prenda Blanca Arlington Station Location Lake athews G 1G IS_Pmdu ction1PrajectslRCTC_202159YLaSierra Metrolin k_2597251Map_DocsUncchRegional mzd-aburvall-S17r2015 Box Springs Woodcrest Sunnymead Lib Edgemont Arnold lfeights Lake Elsinore West March March AFB Canyon Lake Regional Location Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 G1GIS_ Prod uction5Prgects5RCTC_202159}LaSte rra Metrolink_259725UAap_Docshnxd\Site Plan. mxd-aburvall-9/1512015 Conceptual Site Plan Figure 3 APPENDIX A - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) Mitigation Measure Implementation/ Responsible Entity Timing Enforcement Entity B1O-01. A pre -construction survey for BUOW should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30-days prior to vegetation clearing/grading. If BUOW are found on -site during the pre - construction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of active BUOW nests and MSHCP conservation requirements with regards to BUOW are met. Qualified Biologist, Project Construction Manager, and RCTC Pre -construction and during construction (if applicable) RCTC B1O-02. A pre -construction survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to vegetation clearing/grading, if vegetation clearing/grading occurs during the nesting season (March 15 — August 15). If nesting birds protected under the MBTA are found onsite during the pre -construction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of protected active nests. Qualified Biologist, Project Construction Manager, and RCTC Pre -construction and during construction (if applicable) RCTC CUL-01. RCTC shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to provide monitoring services during grading and excavation activities of project construction. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during grading/excavation activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, as approved by RCTC, is able to assess the significance of the find. If a find is determined to be significant, RCTC and the archaeologist, in consultation with Native American representatives, will meet to determine appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Such measure may include but not be limited to avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Qualified Archaeologist, Native American Monitor(s), Project Construction Manager, and RCTC During grading and excavation activities RCTC CUL-02. If previously unidentified paleontological resources are unearthed during excavation activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist, approved by RCTC, is able to assess the significance of the find. If a find is determined to be significant, RCTC and the paleontologist will determine appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant fossil materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Qualified Paleontologist, Project Construction Manager, and RCTC During grading and excavation activities RCTC TRAF-01. The following improvements shall be implemented by RCTC at the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue prior to operation of the parking lot: • Restripe westbound shared through -right to dedicated right turn lane. • Add a westbound right turn overlap phase. Project Construction Manager and RCTC During construction RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project April 2016 APPENDIX B - STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DOCUMENTATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and :Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Edmund G. Brown Jr. Govemor Apri15,2016 Patricia Castillo Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion SCH#: 2016031016 Dear Patricia Castillo: E of P N\Ut".4',4 0 9 0. 4OF caw" Ken Alex Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on April 4, 2016, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges thatyouhave complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, ; Shrift Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document: Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# .2016031016 ProjectTitle La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Lead Agency Riverside County Transportation Commission Type MND Mitigated Negative ,Declaration Description The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station with supporting infrastructure and features (curb and gutter, planter curbs, fencing, landscaping and irrigation, lighting, benches, information kiosk, and a restroom facility). With the expansion, the project would provide approx. 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and.a small, wood frame storage building on an approx.-4.69 acre site. .Lead Agency Contact Name Patricia Castillo Agency Riverside County Transportation Commission Phone 951-787,7141 Fax email Address -4080 Lemon Street City Riverside State CA .Zip 92501 Project. Location County Riverside City Riverside Region .Lat [Long Cross Streets Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street Parcel No. 138-030-024 Township 3S Range 6W Section 24 Base Proximity to: Highways SR 91 Airports Railways BNSF Rail Line Waterways Riverside Canal Schools Land Use Vacant Land/Single Family Residential (R-1-70000)/Mixed Use - Urban (MU-U) Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Economics/Jobs; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic: Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Public Utilities Commission; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 03/04/2016 Start of Review 03/04/2016 End of Review 04/04/2016 Nnte• Ranks in data fielris result frnm insuffiriPnt infnrmatinn nrnvirterf by leant anennv APPENDIX C - DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LA SIERRA METROLINK PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT Prepared By: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California 92501 EMI `� Riverside [aunty Tronspofionon Commission March 2016 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. A detailed project description is provided in Section 2.0. This document is an Initial Study that provides an evaluation of environmental impacts potentially resulting from the implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following: • To provide RCTC with information needed to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Negative Declaration for a project; • To facilitate the project's environmental assessment early in the design and development of a project; • To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and • To determine the nature and extent of any new impacts associated with the proposed project. 1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS As defined by Section 15063 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining the nature and extent of any required environmental analysis and review. According to Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: • The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. • The proposal has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. • The proposal has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. According to Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the environment. According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a proposal could result in a significant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to insignificant levels. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. t This Initial Study and Negative Declaration are prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of RCTC; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law. RCTC is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for the project. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to responsible agencies and will be made available to the public for review and comment. A 30-day public review period will be provided to allow these entities and other interested parties to comment on the proposed project and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Riverside General Plan and zoning code provides comprehensive policies and strategies intended to guide long-term development within the City. The General Plan outlines development policies, objectives, and land use designations. It specifies zoning applicable to properties within the City and directs the creation and implementation of municipal standards and plans. While RCTC is exempt from local land use policies under state law, aspects of local plans, policies, and zoning ordinances are reviewed in this analysis for informational purposes. 1.3 USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is an informational document which is intended to inform RCTC decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. In its capacity as the Lead Agency, RCTC has determined that this Initial Study will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review and comment. Comments received on the document will be taken into consideration by RCTC as part of their decision making process for the proposed project. 1.4 CONTENTS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental impacts of the proposed project. The following annotated outline summarizes the contents of this Initial Study. • Section 1 — Introduction, provides the procedural context surrounding this Initial Study's preparation and insight into its composition. • Section 2 — Project Description, provides an overview of the proposed project. • Section 3 — Environmental Checklist, presents results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those issue areas that would have either a significant impact, potentially significant impact, or no impact. • Section 4 — Environmental Analysis, evaluates each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is 2 discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis as necessary. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. • Section 5 — Mandatory Findings of Significance (presented in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines). • Section 6 — Persons and Organizations Consulted, identifies those persons consulted and involved in preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Section 7 — References, lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. 1.5 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. Impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: • No Impact: A "No Impact" response is adequately supported if the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. • Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than significant; no additional analysis is required. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." • Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project could have impacts that are considered significant. Additional analyses and possibly an EIR could be required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 1.6 TIERED DOCUMENTS AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on incorporation by reference of tiered documentation, which are discussed in the following section. As permitted in Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, information and discussions from other documents can be included into this document. Tiering is defined as follows: "Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as the one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project." Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages redundant analyses, as follows: "Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including the general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. 3 This approach can eliminate repetitive discussion of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site -specific EIR or negative declaration." Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means." 1.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly -drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). This document incorporates by reference appropriate information from the following documents: • Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside Community Development Department, November 2007. • Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents, Albert A. Webb Associates, November 2007. 4 SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. Table 1 provides existing City of Riverside General Plan land use designations for the site and adjacent properties and Figure 1 provides the regional location of the project. Table 1: Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations Proximity to Site Existing Land Use General Plan Designation' On -site Vacant land Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) North North Existing BNSF rail line91)d State Route 91 (SR - South Single Family Residential (Riverwalk Vista development) Medium Density Residential (MDR) East AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes Commercial (C) West La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking lot Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) Notes:' Figure LU-10 Land Use Policy Map, City of Riverside General Plan 2015 The project site is currently a vacant field. Elevation within the project site ranges from 744 to 752 above mean sea level (AMSL). There is an existing mound of soil located on the southern most portion of the site that would be utilized to bring the site's elevation to match the adjacent parking lot's elevation. The study area (shown in Figure 2), includes the project site and also includes the adjacent drive aisle of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. As identified in Figure 3 (Conceptual Site Plan), with the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Additional work/features include: • Site grading; • Asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping; • Curb and gutter; • Concrete planter curbs; • Wrought iron fencing; • Landscaping and irrigation; • LED marquee lighting; • Storm drain facilities; • Benches and trash receptacles; • Information kiosk; and, 5 " R e s t r o o m f a c i l i t y f o r u s e b y R T A a n d s i t e s e c u r i t y p e r s o n n e l C o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t o t a k e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 2 w e e k s . G r a d i n g , a s p h a l t a n d c o n c r e t e p l a c e m e n t w i l l r e q u i r e 1 8 w e e k s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e p r o j e c t s i t e w o u l d r e q u i r e a b o u t 2 9 , 7 4 6 c u b i c y a r d s o f f i l l , 3 0 , 4 7 9 c u b i c y a r d s o f c u t a n d 7 3 3 c u b i c y a r d s o f e x p o r t t o b r i n g t h e s i t e e l e v a t i o n t o t h e s a m e l e v e l a s t h e a d j a c e n t p a r k i n g l o t . D r o u g h t t o l e r a n t l a n d s c a p i n g i s p r o p o s e d a l o n g I n d i a n a A v e n u e f r o n t a g e a n d w i t h i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t . C o n c r e t e c u r b s t o p s a r e p r o p o s e d a t t h e e n d o f e a c h r o w o f p a r k i n g s p a c e s . S i d e w a l k s w o u l d b e p r o v i d e d f o r p e d e s t r i a n s w a l k i n g t o a n d f r o m t h e p r o p o s e d b u s b a y s . A n e w d r i v e w a y a p p r o a c h w o u l d b e c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n m o s t c o r n e r o f t h e s i t e a n d w o u l d w r a p a l o n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e ' s e a s t e r n a n d n o r t h e r n b o u n d a r y t o c o n n e c t t o t h e p r o p o s e d b u s b a y s . B u s e s a c c e s s i n g t h e s i t e w o u l d d o s o t h r o u g h o n e o f t w o i n g r e s s p o i n t s a l o n g I n d i a n a A v e n u e a n d w o u l d e x i t t h e s i t e v i a t h e t o b e s i g n a l i z e d e x i s t i n g L a S i e r r a S t a t i o n / I n d i a n a A v e n u e i n t e r s e c t i o n . A w r o u g h t i r o n f e n c e w o u l d b e i n s t a l l e d a l o n g t h e n o r t h e r n m o s t b o u n d a r y o f t h e s i t e t o p r o v i d e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e e x i s t i n g r a i l t r a c k s a n d t h e p r o p o s e d b u s s h e l t e r a r e a s ; a n d t h e s o u t h e r n m o s t b o u n d a r y a l o n g I n d i a n a A v e n u e . 2 . 3 O V E R V I E W O F D I S C R E T I O N A R Y A C T I O N S T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t r e q u i r e s t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y a p p r o v a l s f r o m t h e R C T C : " A d o p t i o n o f t h e I n i t i a l S t u d y / M i t i g a t e d N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n O t h e r p e r m i t s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d a s p a r t o f t h e p r o j e c t ' s a p p r o v a l i n c l u d i n g a C o n s t r u c t i o n S t o r m w a t e r P e r m i t ( R e g i o n a l W a t e r Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l B o a r d ) a n d G r a d i n g P e r m i t ( C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e ) a m o n g o t h e r s . 6 SECTION 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Riverside County Transportation Commission; 4080 Lemon Street; Riverside, CA 92501 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patricia Castillo, Capital Projects Manager (951) 787-7141. 4. Project Location: The project is located near the intersection of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street in the City of Riverside adjacent to the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project area is located in Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 6 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series Riverside West, California quadrangle. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92502-2208 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U). 7. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-7000). 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station with supporting infrastructure and features (curb and gutter, planter curbs, fencing, landscaping and irrigation, lighting, benches, information kiosk, and a restroom facility). With the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Refer to Section 2 for a detailed project description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • City of Riverside 7 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 DETERMINATION (MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE) On the basis of the environmental analysis and review completed as part of this Initial Study's preparation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or `potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable egal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Patricia Castillo Capital Projects Manager Date 8 3.4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The environmental analysis in Section 3.0 of this Initial Study indicates that the project would not result in potentially significant impacts. The Initial Study Checklist, provide below and on the following pages, summarizes the findings of the environmental analysis. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X II. AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section X 9 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X IV. t3IULUUlUAL KtSUUKULb. vvould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the X 10 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? X e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the 11 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous X 12 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there X 13 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X 14 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X 15 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account X 16 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including buy not limited to intersections, street, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing X 17 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of X California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 18 SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. As previously stated, while RCTC is exempt from local land use policies under state law, aspects of local plans, policies, and zoning ordinances are reviewed in this analysis for informational purposes._ 4.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are not identified in the City of Riverside's General Plan as an area of scenic importance.' The proposed project site is currently undeveloped land; however, the project site is located north of an existing housing development and south of the existing BNSF rail line and State Route 91 (SR-91). The construction of the project would not impede or obstruct views of a scenic vista, as there are no components of the project, such as buildings or structures that are large, or of a mass and scale that would impact views. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No Impact. There are no significant scenic resources on the project site. In addition, there are no eligible or officially designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.2 Because the project site does not have any designated scenic resources (e.g. trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings) and is not near any scenic highways, the project would not result in any impacts to scenic resources related to a scenic highway. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project site is surrounded by urban uses that include an existing residential development, commercial uses, and the existing BNSF rail line and SR-91. The proposed project site is located within disturbed vacant land, mostly void of any vegetation. The expansion of the existing parking lot would not include project components that would obstruct the background views of the mountains or include removal of significant amount of vegetation. The City of Riverside General Plan designates several roadways as Scenic Boulevards and Parkways in order to protect scenic resources and enhance the visual character of Riverside. While the proposed project will not be constructed along the La Sierra Avenue 1 Open Space and Conservation Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 2 Riverside County Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/index.htm, site accessed November 2, 2015. 19 frontage, it will be in close proximity to La Sierra Avenue, which is designated as a Scenic/Special Boulevard/Parkway within the City's General PIan.3 The proposed project would be designed to comply with the applicable design policies contained in the Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. These applicable policies include the provision of signage, street lighting such as street lamps that reflect a human scale and landscaping in the form of street trees, planters, and pots in the public parkway. As previously stated, RCTC plans on including signage, landscaping and lighting for safety and the project is consistent and compatible with the existing development of the surrounding area. The aesthetic view of the proposed built environment will be consistent with the Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines.' Therefore, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. No impacts are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the introduction of new lighting typically associated with parking lots. This lighting would be similar to that which exists in the adjacent parking lot and surrounding area and would not be considered significant. As previously mentioned above, the proposed project would include lighting for the project that would be consistent with applicable Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. These lighting guidelines will ensure that impacts from lighting remain less than significant. There are no project components that would generate glare within the project. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. According to the Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland map data, the project area is identified as Farmland of Local Importance.5 However, the project site is not utilized for agricultural production and is surrounded on all sides by urban development. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance since 3 Figure CCM-4: Master Plan of Roadways, Circulation and Community Mobility Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 4 Riverside City Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines, City of Riverside, Resolution No. 21544, adopted November 2007. 5 Figure 5.2-1: Designated Farmland, City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents EIR, Section 5.2 — Agricultural Resources, Albert A. Webb Associates, November 2007. 20 the site does not contain these designated farmlands. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not identified as being within a Williamson Act contract.6 In addition, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of MU-U (Mixed Use — Urban)' and is zoned as R-1-7000 (Single-family Residential Zone).$ Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, nor would it conflict with lands subject to a Williamson Act contract. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site does not contain forest lands or timberland and it is not zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland production zones. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The project site does not contain any forest lands as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); therefore, the project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. In addition, the Project is not located in the vicinity of offsite forest resources. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to a non -forest use? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in conversion of important farmland or forest land, or conversion of other agricultural or forestry resources to a non-agricultural or non -forest use since no agricultural or forest land is located within the project vicinity. The project is consistent with City's General Plan 2025 policies related to agricultural preservation including those enforcing Proposition R and Measure C. Specifically, the proposed project does not involve increased access to the agricultural land through the construction of new roads and does not involve expansion of a residential neighborhood adjacent to or into agricultural or forest areas. Due to the limited scope and intensity of the project, the proposed project would allow for continued use of the existing farmland elsewhere in the City in a manner that will ensure the viability and sustainability of the existing agricultural/crop production. Therefore, no impacts are identified and no mitigation is required. 6 Figure 5.2-2 Williamson Act Preserves, City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents EIR, Section 5.2 — Agricultural Resources, Albert A. Webb Associates, November 2007. Figure LU-10: Land Use Policy Map, Land Use Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 8 Zoning Map of the City of Riverside, City of Riverside, 2006. 21 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The air quality plans relevant to the project are the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). The SIP includes strategies and tactics, called RAQS, to be used to attain and maintain acceptable air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Consistency with the RAQS is typically determined by two standards. The first standard is whether the project would exceed assumptions in the RAQS. The second standard is whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or interim reductions as specified in the RAQS. The RAQS relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the region, to forecast future emissions and then determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB mobile source emissions projections and the SCAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle use trends, local general plans, and other application land use plans. For the project, the City of Riverside General Plan is the document governing future land use within the project area. The City of Riverside General Plan was considered as part of SCAG's projections and incorporated into the Regional Growth Management Plan, which provide data for the formulation and development of the RAQS and SIP. A project would be considered inconsistent with air quality plans if it increased population and/or employment growth that would exceed estimates used to develop applicable air quality plans. These exceedances would generate emissions greater than projected regional emission budgets. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated to determine consistency with the land use designation and growth anticipated in the area. The purpose of the proposed project is to expand an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project would support alternative modes of transportation and would result in a less intensive land use than what is currently envisioned in the City's General Plan. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in population in the area and the project is not expected to result in any increase in long-term regional air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project contains no elements that would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans. No impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. 22 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant. Construction -generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur. Construction - related activities would result in the temporary generation of emissions from limited grading and the installation of drains, paving, landscaping, and other site improvements. There will be limited emissions associated with construction worker trips. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with construction activities. A SCAQMD CaIEEMod computer model analyzed both short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) impacts associated with the project. The results of the air quality monitoring determined that the proposed project would result in the following emission levels: Table 2: Peak Daily Construction Emissions (Ibs/day) Activity ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Grading 4.78 50.38 33.09 0.05 5.55 3.98 Paving 2.30 20.75 15.49 0.03 1.35 1.11 Fence/Lighting/Painting 3.08 5.60 4.76 0.01 0.52 0.43 Total Construction Emissions 10.16 76.73 53.54 0.09 7.42 5.52 SCAQMD Emission Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Table 3: Peak Daily Operational Emissions (Ibs/day) Source ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile (Riders) 1.96 3.48 15.37 0.03 2.05 0.58 Architectural Coating 0.02 -- -- -- -- -- Landscaping/Maintenance 4.05 -- -- -- Total Operational Emissions 6.03 3.48 15.37 0.03 2.05 0.58 SCAQMD Emission Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No The above tables compare the anticipated project emissions (short-term and long-term) to the SCAQMD daily thresholds. As identified in Tables 2 and 3, construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all regulatory requirements including compliance with SCAQMD recommended practices for construction activity. Therefore, a less than significant impact associated with the construction and operation emissions would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 23 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant. Refer to Checklist Response 4.3(b). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities (schools, hospitals) or land uses (residential neighborhoods) that include members of the population (children, elderly, and people with illnesses) that are particularly sensitive to effects of air pollutants. As summarized in Tables 2 and 3, no substantial air pollutant emissions would be generated during construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant. The ARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook identifies a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations. Construction associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in minor amounts of odor compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust. However, these odors would be limited to the time that construction equipment is operating during the construction period of the project. All construction equipment is required to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and all construction equipment is turned off when not in use. These activities would be short term and are not likely to result in nuisance odors that would affect surrounding uses. Upon completion of the project's construction, the temporary sources of diesel exhaust would cease. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of the field survey work conducted for the proposed project, no State or Federal Threatened or 24 Endangered plant or animal species were identified as having the potential to occur within the project site. One wildlife species of special concern has a potential to occur within the project site based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). A focused burrowing owl survey was conducted according to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions in August 2015. Several small mammal burrows were found in the southern half of the survey area, with some near the center of the project site of a large enough diameter to support burrowing owl. However, the openings of these larger burrows were covered with cobwebs, indicating that the burrows were inactive. In addition, no burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs (e.g. whitewash, pellets, scat, tracks, and/or feathers) were observed within the survey area during the 2015 focused surveys.9 Although no burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs were observed, the burrowing owl is a highly mobile species that has the potential to subsequently occupy any suitable burrows within the project site. Mitigation Measure B1O-01 would provide measures (e.g. confirmation of no burrowing owls being present at the site, avoidance of active nests until after breeding season, active relocation). Through implementation of B1O-01, the project would avoid the take of active BUOW nests or BUOW prior to and during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B1O-01 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Although no raptors were observed during the site visit, eucalyptus and palm trees provide roosting and nesting habitat for raptors, such as hawks and owls, among other resident and migratory bird species. The proposed project site supports foraging and nesting habitat for raptors and other avian species. In order to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing should be scheduled outside of the nesting season (March 15 to August 15). Implementation of Mitigation Measure B1O-02 (which requires construction to occur outside of the bird breeding season) would reduce impacts to migratory breeding birds to a less than significant level. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game [Wildlife] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant. As required under the MSHCP, a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biologist was prepared for the project. The habitat assessment finds the proposed project complies with the requirements of the Western Riverside MSHCP.19 The project site does not contain any areas that meet the MSHCP definition of Riparian/Riverine areas. In addition, the project site is not located within any MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Areas (NEPSSA) or Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA). The project site contains only non-native grassland and disturbed/developed areas, neither of which are considered sensitive or of special concern to the CDFW or USFWS. The project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Cells, MSHCP Core or Linkage areas, and is not adjacent to any lands within or proposed for inclusion within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The project site does contain marginally suitable habitat for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat in the form of non-native grassland, however, the site is not likely to support this species due to the site's isolation from other areas of potential habitat. The project site is also within the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area. The City of Riverside 9 MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR, Inc., August 2015. io MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project HDR, Inc., August 2015. 25 requires the payment of the required SKR Preservation development fee ($500 per gross acre of parcels proposed for development) prior to issuance of a grading permit per Riverside Municipal Code 16.40.040. The establishment of this fee is for all applicants within the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area who cannot satisfy mitigation requirements through on -site mitigation. SKR HCP fees collected are utilized to purchase or support more suitable habitat for the SKR. Payment of the SKR HCP fee would ensure consistency with the requirements of the SKR HCP and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site is located within an urban built-up area and has a long history of severe disturbance such that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 401 or 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors, also called dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are linear features primarily connecting at least two substantial habitat areas. Wildlife corridors and linkages are important features in the landscape, and the viability and quality of a corridor or linkage are dependent upon site -specific factors. The project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Cells, Cores, or Linkages. In addition, the project site is not used as a migratory wildlife corridor, nor does it qualify for use as a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. As identified in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the requirements and policies identified in the Western Riverside MSHCP." Any project within the City of Riverside's boundaries that proposes planting a street tree within a City right-of-way must follow the Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual. The Manual documents guidelines for the planting, pruning, preservation, and removal of all trees in City rights -of -way. The specifications in the Manual are based on national standards for tree care established by the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Arborists Association, and the American National Standards Institute. In the event that the proposed project requires the planting of a street tree within a City right-of-way, the proposed project would be in compliance with the Tree Policy Manual. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 11 MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project HDR, Inc., August 2015. 26 biological resources. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Refer to Checklist Response 4.4 e. MITIGATION MEASURES B1O-01 A pre -construction survey for BUOW should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30-days prior to vegetation clearing/grading. If BUOW are found on -site during the reconstruction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of active BUOW nests and MSHCP conservation requirements with regards to BUOW are met. B1O-02 A pre -construction survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to vegetation clearing/grading, if vegetation clearing/grading occurs during the nesting season (March 15 — August 15). If nesting birds protected under the MBTA are found onsite during the pre - construction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of protected active nests. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or structure may be historically significant if it is locally protected through a local general plan or historic preservation ordinance. The State of California, through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), also maintains an inventory of those sites and structures that are considered to be historically significant known as the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Finally, the U.S. Department of Interior has established specific guidelines and criteria that indicates the manner in which a site, structure, or district is to be defined as having historic significance and in the determination of its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A property may be historic if it is old enough to be considered historic (generally considered to be at least 50 years old and appearing the way it did in the past). Both a cultural records search and a cultural resource pedestrian survey were conducted for the proposed project.12 The cultural resources records search was conducted on July 21, 2015, and completed at the Eastern Information Center (EIC). This record search 12 Cultural Resources Technical Report— Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR. Inc, December 2015. 27 included the identification of previous cultural resource projects and resources located within the project area, as well as within a half mile buffer around the project area. Results of the EIC records search indicated that there are two known archaeological resources and five historic resources within one-half mile of the project site. No cultural resources were identified within the project area by the EIC record search. During the cultural resource survey conducted on July 24, 2015, one resource was identified and recorded as HDR-001 within the project site. Resource HDR-001 is a section of Indiana Avenue that represents its original alignment. This represents a small section of the road that was abandoned and realigned sometime after 1980. This section of Indiana Avenue is not a contributing resource to area's history of transportation or to its community planning efforts under Criterion A. The history of the area suggests that this abandoned section of Indiana Avenue is not associated with any significant historic persons and is not significant under Criterion B. This abandoned section of road has no character defining features and its design and scale are standard for two-lane surface roads in the area. Its scale, function, and location indicate it was not distinguished by its construction and does not represent the work of a master. Therefore, it is not significant under Criterion C. This section of the road is unlikely to yield information important to the past, and so it is not significant under Criterion D. Alterations to this section of Indiana Avenue after 1948 include paving and striping. Integrity of location is intact, but the setting and association has been destroyed. Modifications to the road and road abandonment have left the road in poor condition and it lacks integrity. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the CRHR or the NRHP, either individually or as a contributing resource to Indiana Avenue. As previously mentioned, two pre-recorded archaeological sites and five historic sites are located outside of the project site (the closest is about 1000 feet south of the project site) and will not be impacted by the project. The parcel contains various pieces of refuse, including various examples of building materials. The building material are not of historic significance and do not require recordation. Although, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 or an identified tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC §21082.3, there is a potential for project -related construction to impact unknown or previously unrecorded archaeological resources. For this reason, Mitigation Measure CUL-01 is proposed in the event that cultural resources are inadvertently encountered during excavation activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-01 would reduce the potential impact associated with archaeological and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 4.5(a). c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains of extinct organisms, and provide the only direct evidence of 28 ancient life. They are considered to be non-renewable resources because they cannot be replaced once they are destroyed. In general, surface disturbing activities such as grading and excavation have the potential to cause adverse effects on surface and subsurface paleontological resources. Direct impacts include destruction due to breakage and fragmentation. Indirect impacts may result from increased accessibility to paleontological resources resulting in an increased likelihood of looting or vandalism. A paleontological records and literature search were conducted for the proposed project.13 The paleontological resources records search was completed at the San Bernardino Museum County Museum. This record search included the identification of previous resources located within the project area, as well as within a ten mile buffer around the project area. Results of the records search indicated that there are five fossil localities within a ten mile radius. However, there were no records of fossils within the project site or within one mile of the project site. Based on the type of the sediments occurring within the project site and the anticipated depth of excavation, paleontological sensitivity is low to moderate. It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources. However, the potential for the discovery of such resources cannot be completely discounted. For this reason, Mitigation Measure CUL-02 has been identified in the unlikely event that fossil resources are encountered during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-02 would reduce impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52) took effect on July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires a lead agency to make best efforts to avoid, preserve, and protect tribal cultural resources. The bill states that tribal cultural resources are: 1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either (i) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or included in a local register of historical resources; 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c) ; 3) A cultural landscape that meets one of the criteria of 1), above, and is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape; and/or 4) A historical resource described in PRC 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource described in PRC 21083.2(g), or a non -unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC 21083(h) if it conforms with the criteria of 1), above. A sacred lands record search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 3, 2015 to identify all California Native American tribes (as defined in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code) that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site. The NAHC responded on August 25, 13 Paleontological Resources Technical Report for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside County, California, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., October 2015. 29 2015 that there were no known sacred sites within the project area. The NAHC recommended contacting forty two Native American individuals and or tribes indigenous to the surrounding area. A letter to each of the forty four contacts representing twenty three different tribes was sent out on September 2, 2015 requesting any information on heritage resources. The letters were followed up by phone and by email on several occasions over a two month period thereafter. Based on the analysis as documented in the Cultural Resources Report prepared for the project, no tribal cultural resources fitting the definition above were identified. In addition, the NAHC did not indicate the presence of Native American resources in the immediate project area and no tribal cultural resources have been identified within the project area by the representatives contacted. Prior to the release of the CEQA document for a project, AB 52 requires the lead agency to initiate consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation. As of the date of this document, one California Native Tribe identified by the NAHC as potentially having knowledge of the project area (Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians) has requested that RCTC inform them of projects in the geographic area of the project. A letter notifying the tribe of the project was sent by RCTC to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians on November 5, 2015. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians requested consultation under AB 52, of which RCTC has since initiated. A phone call to discuss the tribe's concerns was held on November 20, 2015 between RCTC and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians followed up by a field site visit with the tribe and RCTC on December 2, 2015. During the field visit to the project area the tribe expressed concerns about the grading of the soil in the southern portion of the project site that may disturb and/or unearth cultural artifacts currently buried under the alignment of the historic road or the soil built up around the road. Specifically, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians are concerned the project site is in the general vicinity of village sites and may be in the vicinity of a trade route, due to the proximity of the current railroad to the project site. Although the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 or an identified tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC §21082.3, there is a potential for project -related grading/excavation activities to impact unknown or previously unrecorded archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-01 requires tribal monitoring during grading/excavation activities and a stop -work provision to ensure protection of any inadvertently discovered archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources during construction of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-01 would reduce the potential for impacting archaeological and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level by including provisions for the monitoring, discovery and treatment of such resources. As identified in Appendix D, AB52 consultation has concluded between RCTC and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians on December 17, 2015. 30 e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant. There are no known burial sites or other cultural sites that may contain human remains located within the project site. Due to the lack of any indication of a formal cemetery or informal family burial plots on -site, the proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on known human remains. However, if human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors shall immediately stop all activities in the immediate area of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and RCTC. The coroner would be permitted to examine the remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the coroner would notify the NAHC to identify the "Most Likely Descendent" (MLD). Despite the affiliation of any Native American representatives at the site, the NAHC's identification of the MLD would stand. The MLD shall be granted access to inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to RCTC means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains would be determined in consultation with RCTC and the MLD. RCTC would be responsible for the final decision, based upon input from the various stakeholders. If the human remains are determined to be other than Native American in origin, but still of archaeological value, the remains would be recovered for analysis and subject to curation or reburial at the expense of RCTC. If deemed appropriate, the remains would be recovered by the coroner and handled through the Coroner's Office. Coordination with the Coroner's Office would be through RCTC and in consultation with the various stakeholders. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials would be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations would be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings shall be filed with the EIC. Adherence to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would reduce impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES CUL-01 RCTC shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to provide monitoring services during grading and excavation activities of project construction. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during grading/excavation activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, as approved by RCTC, is able to assess the significance of the find. If a find is determined to be significant, RCTC and the archaeologist, in consultation with Native American representatives, will meet to determine appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Such measure may include but not be limited to avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data 31 recovery, or other appropriate measures. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. CUL-02 If previously unidentified paleontological resources are unearthed during excavation activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist, approved by RCTC, is able to assess the significance of the find. If a find is determined to be significant, RCTC and the paleontologist will determine appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant fossil materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and there are no active faults located on or adjacent to the project site.14 No impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant. The project site is located in seismically -active Riverside County. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the City is particularly susceptible to geologic hazards such as earthquakes and secondary hazards due to the proximity of major faults and the soil composition within the region. The project site has been and will continue to be directly affected by seismic activity to some degree; however, no habitable structures would be constructed as part of the project that would be susceptible to secondary hazards that may impact local residents. The construction of the restroom facility would adhere to standard building codes which take into account seismic conditions. Given that active faults are not adjacent to the project site, it can be concluded that the project site would not be affected by ground shaking more than any other area in seismically active Southern California. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 14 Figure PS-1: Regional Fault Zones, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 32 Less Than Significant. Liquefaction is the sudden and temporary loss of soil strength when sandy, unconsolidated soils/sediments with fine grain characteristics, loose consistency and low confining pressure, saturated by groundwater within 50 feet of the surface are subjected to strong ground shaking or dynamic loading. Liquefaction is also associated with lateral spreading, excessive settlement, and failure of shallow bearing foundations. The project site is identified as having a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction.15 No habitable structures would be constructed as part of the proposed project; however, proposed improvements (e.g., worker restroom, information kiosk, storage shed) could be at risk from seismic -related ground failure. The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the California Building Code (CBC), which includes specifications for site preparation, such as compaction requirements for foundations. Compliance with these standards would reduce impacts associated with liquefaction to a less than significant level. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The proposed project site is located on flat topography and is not identified as being within an area susceptible to landslides.16 No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant. Construction of the proposed project would include the removal of limited existing vegetation from the project site, which would expose soil to wind or water erosion temporarily. To minimize erosion during construction, requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which prescribe erosion/sediment control, would reduce impacts associated with soil erosion to a less than significant level during construction. After construction concludes, the area will be paved and reestablished with landscaping that will further reduce erosion impacts during operation of the proposed project. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant. Land subsidence is the lowering of the land -surface elevation from activities occurring underground. Typical activities include oil, gas, or water extraction, hydrocompaction (soil compaction under it's own weight), and earthquakes. The project site is generally topographically flat and would not be subject to landslides, but the potential for liquefaction if moderate to high. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction induced lateral spreading is also moderate to high. The proposed project would be designed and constructed with adequate foundations and bedding in accordance with the CBC and standard engineering practices to address the possible effects of unstable soils. No significant geologic hazards to the proposed project from landslide, lateral spreading, 15 Figure PS-2: Liquefaction Zones, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 16 Figure PS-7: Fire Hazard Areas, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 33 subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would occur. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The project area is not identified as containing expansive soils." No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed restroom facility would be connected to the City's existing sewer system. Therefore, the project does not include buildings that require septic tanks or the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant. Emissions of Greenhouse gasses (GHG's) contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential and agricultural uses. About three quarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to the burning of fossil fuel. While an individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence Global Climate Change (GCC), individual projects can incrementally contribute to the potential for the cumulative emissions driving GCC. The purpose of this analysis is to analyze whether the project's contributions combined with emissions from all other past, present, and probable future projects contribute to the potential for GCC on a cumulative basis and whether the project's contribution to the impact is "cumulatively considerable." The City of Riverside has not adopted a GHG reduction plan, as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15183.5(b), which would apply to the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. The City will establish goals for GHG emission reductions in the Climate Plan when it is completed and adopted. Projects within the City subject to environmental review will refer to the Climate Plan, if adopted, to ensure consistency in long-term planning. However, since the Climate Plan is not adopted at this time, this analysis relies on the Air Resources Board (ARB) guidance on analyzing GHG 17 Figure PS-3: Soils with High Shrink -Swell Potential, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 34 emissions. The ARB has published draft preliminary guidance to agencies on how to establish interim significance thresholds for analyzing GHG emissions called Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed guidance generally describes three classes of common projects: industrial, commercial, and residential projects. For each type of project, the proposed draft guidance recommends that a two -pronged threshold be employed, one performance -based and one numerical. For performance standards, the draft guidance suggests that operations and construction of a project be evaluated for their consistency with applicable performance standards contained in plans designed to reduce GHG emissions and/or help meet the State's emission reduction objectives in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The proposed draft guidance contains two numerical standards. First, the proposed draft guidance states that some residential and commercial projects, emitting 1,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) per year or less, would clearly not interfere with achieving the State's emission reduction objectives in AB32 (and Executive Order [EO] S-03-05) and thus, may be deemed categorically exempt from CEQA. Under this approach, projects emitting less than 1,600 metric tons of CO2E per year would not require further analysis. Second for industrial projects, the proposed draft guidance proposed that projects that emit less than 7,000 metric tons of CO2E per year may be considered less than significant, recognizing that AB32 will continue to reduce or mitigate emissions from these types of projects over time. As previously stated, the City does not have a Climate Plan adopted at this time; therefore, this analysis relies on the ARB's guidance on analyzing GHG emissions. Consistent with the thresholds of significance identified in the ARB's guidance for the project, a significant impact could result in the project would contribute to a long-term ongoing increase in GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, a long-term ongoing increase in GHG emissions is considered to be an annual amortized increase in GHG emissions that exceeds 1,600 metric of CO2E. Overall, the following activities associated with the project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: • Construction Activities: During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil -based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). • Electricity Use: Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuels. • Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generated during construction and operation of the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy for transporting and managing the waste which project additional GHGs. • Motor Vehicle Use: Transportation associated with the proposed project would 35 result in GHG emissions from fuel combustion in daily automobile and bus trips. CO2 is the most significant GHG emitted by vehicles, but lesser amounts of CH4 and N2O are also emitted in vehicle exhaust. GHG emissions are typically measured in pounds or tons of CO2E. CO2E is a quantity that describes, for a given GHG, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential when measure over a specific time scale. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. GHG emissions generated by construction of the project would predominantly consist of CO2. The modeling conducted for the construction analysis shows that emissions of CO2E would be as high 180 metric tons during project construction, which is below the threshold of 1,600 metric tons cited in ARB's guidance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to generate 422 metric tons of CO2E per year. The GHG emissions anticipated to be generated during construction and operation of the project would not exceed the screening level thresholds established by the ARB. Therefore, impacts associated with direct and indirect generation of GHGs and consistency with applicable plans adopted for reducing GHGs do not require further study and are less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation available to date for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Implementation of the project would not interfere or conflict with the State's objectives of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments would be present during project construction. These materials include diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the project. However, the project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and City of Riverside Municipal Code regulations which regulate and control those materials handled 36 on -site. Compliance with these regulations and standards ensure that potentially significant impacts would not occur. In the unlikely event of a spill, fuels would be controlled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This impact is considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? Less Than Significant. Operation of the project would not require use of hazardous materials; therefore, no hazards or hazardous materials impacts related to the long term operation of the project are anticipated. Construction activities would include the use of limited quantities of ordinary equipment fuels and fluids. However, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. Such materials would be kept at construction staging areas and would be secured when not in use. In the unlikely event of a spill, fuels would be controlled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The nearest school to the project site is Arizona Intermediate School which is located approximately 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) south of the project site. Therefore, accidents involving hazardous emissions or materials associated with the project would not impact any adjacent school. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not located on any hazardous materials site as designated by Government Code Section 65962.5, and there is no opportunity to create a significant hazard to the public or environment.'$ No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The closest public/public use airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the proposed project. The project site is located outside of the airport influence area boundary for the Riverside Municipal Airport.19 18 Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, HDR, Inc., September 2015. 19 Map RI-1— Compatibility Map for Riverside Municipal Airport, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Background Data, Volume 2 West County Airports, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, adopted 37 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people in the project area. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons to airport -related hazards. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the City of Riverside's Emergency Operations Plan, which addresses extraordinary emergency situations. All emergency procedures would be consistent with local, State, and Federal guidelines during the construction and operation of the project. Therefore, no impact is identified and no mitigation is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site does not fall into an area characterized as either (1) a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risk and hazard, or (2) very high fire hazard severity zone.20 In addition, the project site is surrounding on all sides by urban development. Therefore, the development and operation of the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. March 2005. 20 Figure PS-7 — Fire Hazard Areas, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside Community Development Department, November 2007. 38 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant. Construction activities require the use of gasoline and diesel - powered heavy equipment, such as a bulldozer, backhoe, bobcat, and small pickup trucks. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances could be utilized during construction. Construction activities could promote soil erosion discharging sediment to adjacent drainages. Sedimentation would degrade the water quality of the receiving waters. Materials associated with construction equipment such as fuels, oils, antifreeze, coolants, and other substances could adversely affect water quality if inadvertently released to surface waters. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water quality of the surface water runoff and add pollution into local waterways. The most likely runoff constituent of concern from the project site would be from sediment created by soil disturbance during or immediately after construction. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permitting program regulates storm water quality from construction sites. RCTC would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for coverage under the State- wide storm water discharge NPDES permit. The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list any best management practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program. Specific BMPs that may be applicable would include establishment of sediment basins and erosion control perimeter around active construction and contractor layout areas, silt fencing, jute netting, straw waddles, or other appropriate measures to control sediment from leaving the construction area. These temporary features serve to trap and absorb pollutants and sediments before they can leave the area. Construction contractors would be made aware of the required BMPs and good housekeeping measures for the project site and associated construction staging areas. Construction debris and waste materials would be collected at the end of each day and properly disposed in trash or recycle bins. For this project, implementation of standard BMPs will adequately protect against both typical and accidental discharges. During operation of the project, stormwater from the site would be routed to adjoining drainage areas. The increase in pervious surface would be a relatively small amount, which would not result in a significant or substantial change in runoff quality. With the implementation of standard BMPs during construction and operation of the proposed project, impacts to water quality are anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- 39 existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The project does not propose to use groundwater resources or to otherwise affect any groundwater resources that are used for water supply. In addition, the proposed project is not located in an area identified for groundwater recharge. As such, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant. Although some grading would be required for the construction of the proposed project, the drainage pattern of the site would not be significantly changed. The drainage system proposed for the project would not alter flows within the project site that would increase the risk of on- or off -site flooding. In addition, erosion and sedimentation resulting from landscaping and maintenance would be controlled through the implementation of required BMPs. The project would not result in a significant change in drainage patterns. Impacts associated with this issue are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on - or off -site? Less Than Significant. The proposed project would be required to comply with City of Riverside regulations and the requirements of the Phase II General Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit for managing stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or manner of surface runoff, which would result in flooding on- or off -site. During construction, BMPs would be implemented, consistent with the permit, so that surface runoff would be controlled to the extent practicable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant. Please refer to Response 4.9(d). f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant. Please refer to Response 4.9(a). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 40 No Impact. The proposed project would result in the construction of a parking lot with supporting infrastructure. No housing is proposed as part of the project and the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area.21 The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal flood hazard map. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As previously stated, the project site is not identified as being within a 100- year flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the placement of structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) No Impact. The project is not located in an area of a levee or dam.22 No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is not located near an ocean coast that could produce a tsunami , a body of water that could produce a seiche, or steep slopes that could create a mudflow. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue is anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. 21 Figure PS-4: Flood Hazard Areas, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 22 Figure PS-4— Flood Hazard Areas, Public Safety Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 41 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. According to the City of Riverside General Plan, the project site has a land use designation of Mixed Use - Urban.23 The project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The project would not conflict with applicable City of Riverside land use designations or zoning standards and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation with jurisdiction over the project. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.4(f). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no mineral, oil or energy extraction and/or generation activities within the project area or in the immediate area. The resources and materials that would be used to construct the project will not include any materials that are considered to be rare or unique. In addition, the project site is not designated in the City of Riverside's General Plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. 24 Therefore, no impact is anticipated to occur with implementation of the project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 23 Figure LU-10—Land Use Policy Map, Land Use and Urban Design Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 24 Figure 05-1: Mineral Resources, Open Space and Conservation Element, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, City of Riverside, amended November 2012. 42 4.12 NOISE a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant. The City of Riverside Municipal Code, Chapter 7.35 General Noise Regulations regulates noise emitted from construction activities through the placement of time restrictions. The City Noise Ordinance also addresses long-term interior and exterior noise impacts caused by traffic and other sources. Construction of the proposed project would be a source of temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels that could be audible to nearby sensitive receptors during the construction of the project. The mix of equipment operating on -site would vary depending on the activity being conducted, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. As required in Chapter 7.35 of the City of Riverside Municipal Code, construction activities would be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and the use of mufflers or sound dissipative devices for internal combustion engines is required during construction to reduce noise levels associated with construction activities. Construction of the proposed project would be required to adhere to these noise requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operation of the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, since no significant vehicular traffic or other operational noise would be generated during the operation of the project. Accordingly, the proposed project would not contribute to a permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing conditions. The impact is considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant. Construction of the proposed project would generally include conventional construction activities, including excavation, grading, site preparation, and trail construction. A temporary increase in noise levels would result from construction activities. However, development of the proposed project would not result in excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels. There may be relatively minor vibrations from the use of trucks or other equipment during construction activities such as excavation. However, this ground borne condition from such equipment would be relatively minor, intermittent, short-term, and restricted to daytime hours. Additionally, noise sensitive receptors are not located in the immediate vicinity of the construction areas. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant. Please refer to Response 4.12(a). 43 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant. Please refer to Response 4.12(a). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public/public use airport to the project site is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new parking area and other supporting improvements. The project site is currently vacant and new homes or businesses are not proposed. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the displacement of any existing housing or people. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area. Therefore, no impacts related to direct or indirect population growth would occur with the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please refer to Response 4.13(a). 44 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please refer to Response 4.13(a). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The proposed improvements would not include housing units or result in an increase in population within the area. Therefore, there would be no increase in demand for fire or police protection services and no need for new or expanded fire or police services. In addition, proposed improvement would be located within an existing urban area adjacent to the existing Metrolink Station, which is clearly marked and signed to aid in access and timely response in medical emergencies. Therefore, no impacts to fire or police protection are anticipated and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Police protection? No Impact. Refer to Checklist 4.14(a). c) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. The proposed project does not include housing units or other development that would increase the population or the number of students enrolled in schools within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in demand for school services or other public facilities or result in the need for additional or altered facilities. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. d) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project would expand an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase to the area that would require or use additional parks or existing recreational facilities. No impact is identified and no mitigation is required. 45 e) Other public facilities? No Impact. As previously indicated, the proposed project would not increase the local population. Therefore, the proposed project would not create additional demand for local library and medical services and facilities in the area. In addition, no other new governmental services would be needed and the proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on existing governmental services. No impact is anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(d). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(d). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, street, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A small increase in traffic would occur in the project area during the construction phase of the proposed project from construction vehicles and construction workers accessing the site. However, these impacts would be short-term, occurring only during the construction period and are not expected to exceed a level of service standard for roads or highways in the City. During operation of the project, trips to the site would primarily consist of transit commuters 46 accessing public transit options. Riverside Transit Agency buses would also access the site as a stop on select bus routes. The City of Riverside considers a Level of Service (LOS) D as the minimum acceptable LOS to be used for all City intersections and roadways of Collector or higher classification. The City considers a significant impact to occur if a location that is forecast to operate at LOS D or better in "without project" conditions exceeds LOS D in "with project" conditions. A total of 7 intersections were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the project, the proposed project is forecast to generate 19 new a.m. peak hour trips and 237 new p.m. peak hour trips.25 All of the study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection (LOS E) during the p.m. peak hour. During opening year (2016) without project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection (LOS E) during p.m. peak hour. The La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection also is anticipated to operate at 62.1 seconds of delay. With the addition of the project in opening year (2016), the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection is projected to operate at an LOS F and 59.4 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. Based on the City of Riverside's traffic impact threshold of significance, an impact is identified when a project results in an unsatisfactory LOS E or F and adds more than 2 seconds of delay to an intersection. Implementation of improvements at the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue intersection as described in Mitigation Measure TRAF-01 would result in an improvement of seconds of delay at the impacted intersection. In addition, as part of the project design features, a new signal at the access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue will be installed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-01 and the proposed traffic signal would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Checklist Question 4.16(a). c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The closest public/public use airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the proposed project. Implementation of the project would not generate air traffic, require air transportation, or change air traffic levels at the Riverside Municipal Airport. The proposed project would not create safety risks or obstructions to air navigation. No impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required. 25 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Study, Iteris, December 2015. 47 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The design of the proposed project would adhere to City of Riverside standards. Based on preliminary site designs, the proposed project would not increase hazards in the form of sharp curves or dangerous intersections. In addition, the proposed project is considered a compatible land use for this area. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project would expand an existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station. Once completed, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. During construction activities, there could be slight delays to emergency access due to construction vehicles accessing the project site. However, construction activities would be short-term and temporary. The project's effects on emergency access would be limited to construction of the project and would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measure is required. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. As stated previously in Section 10 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed project would be consistent with the City's General Plan. The proposed project is intended to benefit public transit users utilizing the bus and train service in the project area, thereby promoting the use of alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts on alternative transportation systems or conflicts with alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs would occur and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES TRAF-01 The following improvements shall be implemented by RCTC at the La Sierra Avenue/Indiana Avenue prior to operation of the parking lot: • Restripe westbound shared through -right to dedicated right turn lane. • Add a westbound right turn overlap phase. 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Local governments and districts are responsible for complying with State and Federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e.g. sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment as impacts from 48 these processes can degrade water resources and affect human health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater facilities operate in compliance with water quality regulations set forth by the State. WDRs, issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants that POTWs can discharge. These permits also contain pollutant monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. The proposed project would include construction and operation of a restroom facility. The restroom facility would be connected to the existing City sewer system and treated appropriately per the WDRs issued for the POTWs in the City. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed project would need water for dust control and cleaning during the construction phase. Water use for dust control and incidental cleaning during the construction phase would be limited and temporary. Although the proposed project does include the construction of a restroom facility, the restroom facility would only be utilized by transit workers on their bus route to and from the parking lot. This limited water need would not create a demand on existing water facilities or require the construction of a new facility. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur and no mitigation is required. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant. The proposed project would introduce impervious surfaces in the form of a parking, curb and gutter, and other paved areas for an information kiosk, restroom facility, trash cans, and other associated improvements. However, the proposed project would develop an on -site drainage system that would capture storm water generated on site. This on -site drainage system is anticipated to be contained within the project site with no expansion of existing facilities occurring off the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on storm drain facilities and no mitigation measures are required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.17(a). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.17(b). f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 49 g) Less Than Significant. Solid waste collection and disposal in the City is managed by the City of Riverside Solid Waste staff or contracted through Burrtec Waste. Waste collected in the City is deposited at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill located at 31125 Ironwood Avenue in the City of Moreno Valley. According to CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), the landfill is currently permitted to receive a maximum of 4,000 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 14,730,025 cubic yards.26 Construction wastes that would be generated by the proposed project would include vegetation debris from site clearing; soil export from excavation and grading; construction wastes from signs and interpretive kiosks; and excess building materials. This one-time waste generation would be temporary and would not deplete available capacities at existing landfills. Since wastes generated during construction of the proposed project would be handled and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations, impacts on landfill capacity would be limited and temporary and are considered less than significant. No conflict with solid waste regulations would occur. Long term -waste generation would be limited to organic wastes from landscape maintenance from landscaped areas and from trash cans provided throughout the parking lot area. This would not result in any significant waste generation that would require additional landfill capacity. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant. Refer to Response 4.17(f). MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. 26 Facility/Site Summary Details: Badlands Sanitary Landfill (SS-AA-0006), CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0006/Detail/, site accessed November 3, 2015. 50 SECTION 5 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant_ With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project has the potential to impact sensitive biological resources, including migratory birds and burrowing owl; however, mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. After mitigation, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; and would not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plants or animals. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, impacts on human remains would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations. Impacts on archaeological, paleontological, and tribal resources would be minimized or avoided through implementation of mitigation measures during grading, excavation, and ground -disturbing activities. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Implementation of the mitigation measures for biological and cultural resources and compliance with existing regulations on the disposition of human remains that may be found during excavation would result in less than significant impacts. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant. The proposed project will not generate any impacts that are individually limited, but will become cumulatively considerable. There a r e no development plans being considered with the proposed project at this time. The impacts of the proposed project would be limited in both intensity and scope due to the relatively small size and the type of improvements proposed. Because project impacts would be less than significant after mitigation, impacts associated with the proposed project are not expected to result in cumulatively considerable impacts when added to the impacts of other projects planned or proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 51 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant. Project construction and operation would not have the potential to generate significant adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly with the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, potential environmental impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 52 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES Albert A. Webb Associates, City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents EIR, November 2007. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Riverside County Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/index.htm, site accessed November 2, 2015. CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System, Facility/Site Summary Details: Badlands Sanitary Landfill (SS-AA-0006), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0006/Detail/, site accessed November 3, 2015. City of Riverside, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, amended November 2012. City of Riverside, Zoning Map of the City of Riverside, 2006. Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., Paleontological Resources Technical Report for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside County, California, October 2015. HDR, Inc., Cultural Resources Technical Report — Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project, December 2015. HDR, Inc., Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review for La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, September 2015. HDR, Inc., MSHCP Consistency Analysis - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, August 2015. !tens, La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Study, December 2015. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Background Data, Volume 2 West County Airports, adopted March 2005. 53 Attachments Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES Regional Location Project Location Map Conceptual Site Plan Project Plan Set MSHCP Consistency Analysis Cultural Resources Technical Report AB52 Documentation Paleontological Resources Technical Report Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review Traffic Impact Study Upland 'Sunsweet Narod� I Ontario Alta Loma Grapeland Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga Guasti Champagne Norco Corona Etrwanda (Rochester _ Pepper Corner GIG IS_Pmdu ction Wrajects1RCiC_202159ILaSierra Metrohn k_2597251M Fontana peclezville I BERNARDINO COUNT Mira Loma Glen Avon Rubidoux Pedley La Sierra May Home Gardens El Cerrito p_Oocslrnx Arla7nza Bloomington Riverside Arlington Station Location Lake Ma hews dl R e g i o n al. m xd- a b u rya l l-8/7/2015 Marigold r' 1 tir I Map Extent Canyon Crest Hei. g\ Lemons \\\\\\ Belvedere Heights , Pachappa Box Springs - Woodcres[ i f l . la .. ' West r-ae d � im ^i ' March ir Nt Lake Elsinore Loma linda March AFB Canyon Lake Regional Location Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 I.,IE���1 i ate$��°'$t: r�"�.: '!;�,�� ti �'®!;&eE�l�,�� iT�..=.- 4' i .tea• 4 ' GAG IS_Production4ProlecIs1RCTC_202159\La Sierra Metrollnk_259725Wap_Docs4nxd\Site Plan. mxd-ahurva II-9/15/2015 Conceptual Site Plan Figure 3 APPENDIX A - PROJECT SET PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LA SIERRA PARKING LOT EXPANSION IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA GENERAL NOTES Based on Soils Report by GeoTek, Inc., dated, March 16, 2009, the following assumptions have been made: a) Design soil bearing = 2,500 psf ==> use 2,500 psf as conservative number b) Equivalent fluid pressure = 250 pcf c) Equivalent passive fluid pressure = 250 pcf Notes for Reinforced Concrete 1. Steel shall be Grade 60 2. Special Inspection is not required except for concrete at anchor bolts 3. Special Inspection is required for anchor bolts and placement of concrete at anchor bolts 4. Anchor bolts to be held in place via templates prior to concrete pour; inspection is required prior to pour 5. All rebar to be placed in relative position as shown on drawings; no splices will be permitted except as noted on the drawings 6. Unless noted otherwise, all structural dry -pack shall be 4,000 psi; provide mix design for review and approval 10 days prior to use 7. All exposed concrete edges and corners shall be chamfered with 1 /8" rounded edge 8. Concrete shall be a minimum 3,000 psi @ 28-days Design Loads and Information Seismic Data per Sextion 1603.1.5 of 2007 CBC Basic Seismic Design Category: D (Table 1613.5.6(1)) Site Classification: D Basic Seismic Force Resisting System: Building frame system (Light framed walls with shear panels) Analysis Procedure Use: Equivalent lateral force procedure (ASCE 7 section 128=> V=CsW) Ss = Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration SI = Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration I = Seismic Importance Factor Sds = Spectral Response Coefficient Sdi = Spectral Response Coefficient R = Response Modification Factor Cs = Seismic Response Coefficients 1. Use 2007 California Building Code and ASCE 7 2. R = 6.5 3. I = 1.0 4. Seismic Design Criteria D 5. Occupancy Category I 6. Wind velocity: 85 mph, site exposure 7. Roof Live Load: 20 psf (includes PV equipment) 8. Roof Dead Load: 20 psf 9. Seismic Loads: V = CsW Where: Cs = (SDs) / (R/I) But, Cs need not exceed Cs = Sol / T(R/I) for T < TL Cs = SD1TL / T2(R/I) for T > TL But, Cs shall not be less than 0.01 T = Ta = Cthnx Where: Ct = 0.02 (Table 12.8-2 ASCE 7) Hn = building height x = 0.75 (Table 12.8-2 ASCE 7) TL = 8 SDS = 0.67 SMS Sol = 0.67 SMi SMs = FaSs Where: Ss = 0.15 (conservative) Fa = 1.6 (conservative) SMi = FVS1 Where: Si = 0.04 (conservative) Fv = 2.4 (conservative) Wind Data per Section 1603.1.4 of 2007 CBC Basic Wind Speed (3 Second Gust): V3S = 85 MPH Basic Wind Speed (Fastest Mile): Vfm = 71 MPH Wind Exposure Category: C (ASCE 7 Table 6-3) Occupancy Group II Cnet is obtained from Table 1609.6.2(2) qs = Wind Speed Coefficient I = Wind Importance Factor Kz = Wind Exposure Kzt = Wind Exposure Terrain Cnet = Interrial Pressure Coefficient 10. Wind Loads: P = gsKzCnet[IKzt] Where: qs = 18.5 (85 mph) Kzt = 1.0 Kz = 0.85 (Exposure C Table 6-3 Cnet ==> Wall Windward 0.43 Leeward -0.51 Sidewall -0.66 11. Soil Bearing Pressure: 2,500 psf 12. Fluid Pressure: 30 pcf 13. Passive Fluid Pressure: 250 pcf BENCHMARK: BRASS DISK IN CONCRETE POST, 3 FEET ABOVE GROUND, 146 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF LA SIERRA AND 34 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF ARIZONA. RIVERSIDE COUNTY B.M. ML-83-71 ELEVATION: 783.41 SET TEMP. BENCH MARK @ ECR CURB RETURN, APPROXIMATELY 1512t EASTERLY OF THE INT. LA SIERRA ST. AND INDIANA AVENUE (PARKING LOT ENTRANCE), CHISELED BOX IN CURB ELEVATION IS 745.76 TC BASIS OF BEARINGS BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT IS N55'58'56"E AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY MAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 82, PAGE 7 THOUGH 9, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, BEING THE CENTERLINE OF INDIANA AVENUE LEGEND CONSTRUCT NEW AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS AND VALUES SHOWN HERE -ON ARE CONSIDERED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ALL MANUFACTURE'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED, MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS ON SITE. (not on or within a hill area) ASCE 7) Parapet Wall Windward 1.28 Leeward -0.85 ARLINGTON VICINITY MAP THE THOMAS GUIDE, 1999 EDITION, SAN BERNARDINO/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PAGE 744, SECTION F-2 SEC. 24, T.3S, R. 6W. SPECIAL NOTES TO CONTRACTOR 1. ALL COLUMN BASES, COLUMN BOLTING, HOLD-DOWN STRAPS AND HOLD-DOWN BOLTS, CRITICAL TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THIS BUILDING, SHALL BE HELD IN PLACE BY MEANS OF TEMPLATES PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION. 2. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1704 OF THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 3. ALL A325 BOLT CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COMPRESSION WASHERS 4. 1/4" MINIMUM EXPOSED THREAD REQUIRED AT NUT END OF ALL BOLTS NOTE ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL MUST E SUPPLIED BY A CITY OF RIVERSIDE APPORVED FABRICATION SHOP AND ALL WELDING PERFORMED ON -SITE SHALL BE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF A CITY OF RIVERSIDE APPROVED SPECIAL INSPECTOR PER 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SECTIONS 1704.2 AND 1704.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS CONCRETE: 3,000 PSI ® 28 DAYS STEEL: REBAR #6 GRADE 60 1 (MIN) STEEL 7/8" DIAMTER "J" BOLT - A325 3"x3"x0.229" SQUARE WASHER - A36 (MIN) 6x6x10 WWM - A36 (MIN) 7/8" 0 AB - A325 WOOD: 2"x12" ROOF MEMBERS - DOUGLAS FIR 2"x10" ROOF MEMBERS - DOUGLAS FIR 6"x10" ROOF HEADER MEMBERS - ROUGH SAWN 6"x6" CORNER WALL MEMBERS - ROUGH SAWN 2"x6" WALL MEMBERS - ROUGH SAWN 2"x6" SILL PLATES - PRESSURE TREATED OR RED WOOD LUMBER 4"x12" RIDGE BEAM PLYWOOD SHEATHING - 15/32" STRUCTURAL NO. 1 DFL SIMPSON STRUCTURE CONNECTORS - AS REQ'D SIMPSON HUC0612-SD5 HEADER CONNECTOR SIMPSON H8 CONNECTOR SIMPSON H10A CONNECTOR SIMPSON HD5 CONNECTOR CUT 15,383 cu. yd. UDF) + 8,333 (SUB) - 396 COHC + 1,944 AC + 5,215 30,479 cu. yd. - 29,746 EXPORT 733 cu. yd. 1 • (UDF) UNDOCUMENTED FILL AREA 2. CONCRETE AREA 3. AC AREA 4. (SUB) SUBSIDENCE (0.1') 5. SHRINKAGE 5 -15% SIMPSON LUS26 CONNECTOR SIMPSON HDQ8-SDS3 CONNECTOR SIMPSON H6 CONNECTOR SIMPSON LPT4 CONNECTOR FILL 18,709 cu. yd. + 8,333 10% SHRINK + 2,704 29,746 cu. yd. 8,333 cu. yd. 1,944 cu. yd. 5,215 cu. yd. = 396 cu. yd. 2,704 2,975 3,245 cu. yd. cu. yd. cu. yd. OWNER RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 LEMON STREET, 3RD FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 (951) 787-7910 CONTACT PERSON: BILL BIEHL DEVELOPER RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 LEMON STREET, 3RD FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 (951) 787-7910 CONTACT PERSON: BILL BIEHL PLANS PREPARED BY ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 COMMERCENTER CIRCLE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408 (909) 890-1255 CONTACT PERSON: BRIAN THOMAS, MANAGING ENGINEER CITY BUSINESS TAX CERTIFICATE NO. 107009, EXP. DATE 03/01 /201 1 ENGINEERS ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES: EXCAVATION: EMBANKMENT (EXPORT) ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE RAW, UNADJUSTED NUMBERS SHEET INDEX DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION 15,383 CY. 18,709 CY. SHEET NO. T1 G1 Cl C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 TITLE SHEET DETAIL SHEET GRADING PLAN ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS EROSION CONTROL PLAN UTILITY PLAN STORAGE BUILDING PLAN STORAGE BUILDING ELEVATIONS STORAGE BUILDING DETAILS SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS, FIXTURES, SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, LOAD SCHEDULE, AND ELEVATIONS POWER AND LIGHTING PLAN LIGHTING CONTROLS AND PANEL SCHEDULE ELECTRICAL DETAILS 10901 INDIANA AVENUE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92522 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SCHEDULE, AND NOTES 10 11 12 13 14 CONSTRUCTION NOTES ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 000NSTRUCT 4" AC PAVEMENT (163,174 SF) 0 CONSTRUCT 6" AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS II) (163,174 SF) OCONSTRUCT 6" CURB (MODIFIED) PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 200, TYPE II 04 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 200, TYPE I 000NSTRUCT 4' RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 OCONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER STD 302 (MODIFIED PER PLAN) 0 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 325 0 CONSTRUCT CROSS -GUTTER & SPANDRELS PER STD. 220 0 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 CONSTRUCT 12" CONCRETE FOR BUS LOAD (45,189 SF) 0 CONSTRUCT CATCH BASINS PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 405 (10') 0 CONSTRUCT CATCH BASINS PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 405 (4') 0 CONSTRUCT 18" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE 0 CONSTRUCT 24" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE 0 CONSTRUCT STREET LIGHTS 0 INSTALL STOP SIGN (R1) 0 CONSTRUCT 2 1 /2" IRRIGATION LINE (FOR FUTURE) 0 CONSTRUCT 2" IRRIGATION LINE (FOR FUTURE) 0 CONSTRUCT 1" IRRIGATION LINE (FOR FUTURE) 0 DELETED 0 SAWCUT PAVEMENT @ REMOVE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND/OR SIDEWALK @ REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT 24 REMOVE EXISTING TREES 0 CONSTRUCT BUS SHELTERS PER RTA DESIGN GUIDELINES 26 CONSTRUCT 12" THICK RIP RAP OUTLET STRUCTURE PER DIMENSIONS NOTED @ CONSTRUCT TYPE I -A & TYPE II (MODIFIED) ADA RAMP PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 304 28 CONSTRUCT 14'x 20' STORAGE BUILDING 0 REMOVE EXISTING SHRUBS 30 REMOVE EXISTING RCP PIPE, PLUG, AND RIP RAP 0 REMOVE EXISTING JUNCTION STRUCTURE 32 CONSTRUCT MH STRUCTURE PER APWA STD 324-1 & SHT C2 0 CONSTRUCT WROUGHT IRON FENCE H=6' PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 INSTALL BARRIER GATE PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 INSTALL 2" 0 CONDUCT FOR FUTURE CCTV W/PULL ROPE 36 CONSTRUCT CCTV PULL BOX 0 ADD TRUNCATED DOME (DETECTABLE WARNING DEVICES) ADVANCED WARNING SYSTEM, FULL WIDTH AND DEPTH OF RAMP. DOMES SHALL BE 3/8" HIGH, COLOR SHALL BE YELLOW STRIPING NOTES n CONSTRUCT 4" PARKING STRIPE (WHITE) n CONSTRUCT 8" CROSS WALK STRIPE (WHITE) PARKING STALL PROVIDED 3,970 TONS 3,025 CY 4,300 LF 185 LF 656 SF 450 SF 9,090 SF 700 SF 46 EA 1,674 CY 2 EA 2 EA 38 LF 170 LF 21 EA 3 EA 2,000 LF 360 LF 1,273 LF 330 LF 162 LF 23,424 SF 14 EA 6 EA 2 EA 6 EA 1 EA LS LS 1 EA 1 EA 1,050 LF 1 EA 1,226 LF 6 EA 18 EA QUANTITIES 10,876 LF 500 LF UMnom al........___ Riverside County Transportation Commission 513 EA WDID# 833C355255 SCALE NTS JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. T1 SHEET 1 OF 1 4 SHEETS 4'-0" 2' 2' `1 d d Q a I d a a d a a a d a a a 1" BATTER SEE CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD. DWG. NO. 220 FOR CROSS GUTTERS MODIFIED AS SHOWN CONCRETE RIBBON GUTTER 1'=1' CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD. DWG. NO. 200 MODIFIED AS SHOWN CURB DETAIL i #4 BAR EACH SIDE MID) 1'=1' 2" 8" SECTION A A WHEEL STOPS NTS R=24.00' L=1 1.76' A=28'04'21 " 1 N n A 1 A A A n A A • 1 n n n n _8 \X/\\\/\\\/\\\/ :\//A / O8' INSIDE (nP) WROUGHT IRON FENCE DETAIL NTS WROUGHT IRON FENCE NOTES 1 5' \// r/ //A 8' SECTION - 6' HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ON -SITE FENCE 2-1/2" SQUARE LINE POST (.250" WALL THICKNESS) W/PLASTIC CAPS ON TOP 5 SACK CONCRETE (3/4" ROCK) 1" SQUARE TUBE WITH POINTS ON THE END (.090" WALL) W/PLASTIC CAPS ON BOTTOM HORIZONTAL MEMBERS - 1-1/2" SQUARE TUBE (.125" WALL) R=24.00' L=15.57' 0=37°09'46" 50' 34.50' 15' L=0.86' R=24.00' L=15.57' A=37'09'46" TYPICAL LAYOUT OF WESTERLY CURB L=15.57' 0=37°09'46" NTS 50' 40.66' R=24.00' L=3.81 ' A=09'05'25" N 1 I 7-- 3 1 /2"0 PIPE 2" 0 PIPE (TYP) FINISH SURFACE DRIVEWAY (-- 3 1/2"0 PIPE 11 \\ \\\\\/ /X\/// /. L • �U 8" BARRIER GATE DETAIL BARRIER GATE NOTES OA 1 /4" "U" BOLTS Hi= MATCH HEIGHT OF EXISTING GATES ON SITE H2= 2/3 Hi L = DRIVEWAY WIDTH BO PROVIDE LOCK TABS FOR PAD LOCK USAGE ALL PIPES TO BE PAINTED YELLOW TO MATCH EXISTING GATES ON SITE NTS FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 WDID# 833C355255 / / / / / / / / // / / / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm sston. DESIGNED BY B KT DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT �N�61�IE9tlNG OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, Califomia 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE AS SHOWN DETAIL SHEET DETAILS AND NOTES JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. G1 SHEET 2 OF 1 4 SHEETS X 135.2 --=� I I I I I I I I I I I I TO BE REMOVED CONSTRUCT MH SEE DETAIL SHT 3 / 44.1 8 TBM CH1SOFEDCUR Cif TOP45363-7 (PROTECT M P 137 CONNECT TO EXISTING WROUGHT IRON FENCE / Nr1/ / tx9-. (735) i q.3 42 E R4' REV. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm sston. cV CO. ..1R. DESIGNED BY JVP DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 1 �4D4p., 0.98% In �N • 18' _L 24' (TYP) (TYP) (0 INFORMATION EXISTING CONTOURS NEW CONTOURS RNOINEERINO ESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, Califomia 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: (XXX) XXX (5 EA) 11 11 NOTES X i A: CLEAR AND GRUB SITE — REMOVE ALL ROCKS GREATER THAN 4" DIAMETER AND ALL DEBRIS B: CUT AND FILL GRADES AS NOTED TO CONTOUR LINES — 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION REQ'D Riverside County Transportation Commission 1 "=30' CONSTRUCTION NOTES ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 0 SAWCUT PAVEMENT 0 REMOVE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND/OR SIDEWALK 0 REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT 24 REMOVE EXISTING TREES 0 REMOVE EXISTING SHRUBS 30 REMOVE EXISTING RCP PIPE, RIP RAP, AND PLUG PIPE END 0 REMOVE EXISTING JUNCTION STRUCTURE v o' 29 GRADING NOTES 330 LF 162 LF 23,424 SF 14 EA LS LS 1 EA 1. ALL GRADING SHALL CONFORM TO THE RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 17 AND APPENDIX CHAPTER 33, VOL 1 OF THE CURRENT CITY ADOPTED EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 2. ALL PROVISIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. PROJECT NO. 0528—CR3, DATED: MARCH 16, 2009 SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. CITY BUSINESS TAX CERTIF. NO. BL0018445, EXP. JAN. 01, 2010 3. THIS PLAN IS FOR GRADING PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING ON —SITE OR OFF —SET IMPROVEMENTS. ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED ON THIS PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS OR SIZES, PARKING LOT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS OR LAYOUT, ADA—RELATED REQUIREMENTS, BUILDING LOCATIONS OR FOUNDATIONS, WALLS, CURBING, OFF —SITE DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR OTHER ITEMS NOT RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE BASIC GRADING OPERATION. ON —SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT PLANS. OFF —SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANS APPROVED FOR THIS PURPOSE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 4. CERTIFICATION FROM THE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STATING THAT THE GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED PER THE APPROVED PLAN, AND A COMPACTION REPORT FROM THE SOIL ENGINEER FOR FILL AREAS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED. 5. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION, DUST AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. a. ALL MANUFACTURED SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 5 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION DURING ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS AND, THEREAFTER, UNTIL INSTALLATION OF FINAL GROUND COVER b. ALL SLOPE PROTECTION SWALES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME BANKS ARE GRADED. c. THE DEVELOPER AND HIS CONTRACTOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND SWPPP AND ALSO TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (e.g. HYDROSEEDING, MULCHING OF STRAW, SAND BAGGING, DIVERSION DITCHES, RETENTION BASINS, ETC.) DICTATED BY FIELD CONDITIONS TO PREVENT EROSION AND/OR THE INTRODUCTION OF DIRT, MUD OR DEBRIS INTO EXISTING PUBLIC STREETS AND/OR ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. SPECIAL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NOTED ABOVE DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 15 TO APRIL 15. d. AFTER A RAINSTORM, ALL SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CHECK BERMS AND CHECK DAMS. SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CITY OF RIVERSIDE STREETS. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL CITY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROJECT. 6. ANY IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND INSPECTION FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 7. ANY WALLS, FENCES, STRUCTURES AND/OR APPURTENANCES ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. IF GRADING OPERATIONS DAMAGE OR ADVERSELY AFFECT SAID ITEMS IN ANY WAY, THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKING OUT AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER(S). 8. THE CONTRACTOR / DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT RETAINING WALLS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH PROVISION OF UTILITIES. 9. IT IS THE GRADING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE COMPACTION HAS BEEN ATTAINED ON THE ENTIRE GRADING SITE, INCLUDING FILL AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING BUILDING PADS AND ON ALL FILL SLOPES. 10. IT IS THE SOIL ENGINEER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBSERVE AND PERFORM COMPACTION TESTS DURING THE GRADING TO EVALUATE THE PREPARATION OF THE NATURAL GROUND SURFACE TO RECEIVE THE FILL AND THE COMPACTION ATTAINED IN THE FILL, INCLUDING FILL AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PADS AND ON ALL FILL SLOPES. 11. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE SHOWN FOR GRADING PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACCURACY. 12. FOR GRADING OF AREAS OF 1 ACRES OR MORE, A STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) SHALL BE KEPT ON —SITE AND MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB) — SANTA ANA REGION AND/OR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. 13. GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE LIMITED TO BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 A.M. AND 7 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 5 P.M. ON SATURDAYS. NO GRADING WILL BE PERMITTED ON SUNDAY OR FEDERAL HOLIDAYS (RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE, 7.35.10 ORDINANCE NO. 6273) FOR REDUCED PLANS 2 3 ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES I i I i I i RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION GRADING PLAN WDID# 833C355255 SCALE 1 "= 3 0' JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. SHEET 3 OF 14 SHEETS I I i ' - - - __,...-^ -Ain-- 32 TO BE REMOVED, CONSTRUCT MH SEE DETAIL BELOW i / / / IE INTO EXISTING 1 TIE INTO EXISTING CURB TIE INTO EXISTING CURB 1 TBM CH1SOFED8 CUR Cif TOP453637 ,.CE) ROTECT 1N P 22 18' 18' (TYP) TYP R 15' (TYP) 1 LOIN EXISTING F/�ANDTC 23 (735) 1 /\ / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. SEE WESTERLY CURB DETAIL, SHT 2 (G1) 1.38% 24 Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm sston. R 15' (TYP) R2' (TYP) DESIGNED BY JVP DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 I I X a5 'A‘.ze N e !4_ .l el ft MOW .0.------wiiiiiimp IN" -vekv,....- Nit wwwwwilir.i4w.,, r im. a I I R 15' (TYP) 26 (0 �a 24' 18' (TYP) (TYP) RENGINEERING OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, Califomia 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: R2' (TYP) 11 R 15' (TYP) 35' Riverside County Transportation Commission I i 440 JOEXIST F��IN AND TINGC 29 1 "=30' CONSTRUCTION NOTES ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 0 CONSTRUCT 4" AC PAVEMENT (163,174 SF) OCONSTRUCT 6" AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS II) (163,174 SF) OCONSTRUCT 6" CURB (MODIFIED) PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 200, TYPE II 0 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 200, TYPE I OCONSTRUCT 4' RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER STD 302 (MODIFIED PER PLAN) 0 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 325 0 CONSTRUCT CROSS -GUTTER & SPANDRELS PER STD 220 0 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 CONSTRUCT 12" CONCRETE FOR BUS LOAD (45,189 SF) 0 CONSTRUCT STREET LIGHTS eINSTALL STOP SIGN (R1) 0 CONSTRUCT BUS SHELTERS PER RTA DESIGN GUIDELINES 0 CONSTRUCT TYPE I -A & TYPE II (MODIFIED) ADA RAMP PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 304 28 CONSTRUCT 14'x 20' STORAGE BUILDING 32 CONSTRUCT MH STRUCTURE PER APWA STD 324-1 AND SHT C2 0 CONSTRUCT WROUGHT IRON FENCE H=6' PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 INSTALL BARRIER GATE PER DETAIL ON SHT 2 0 ADD TRUNCATED DOME (DETECTABLE WARNING DEVICES) ADVANCED WARNING SYSTEM, FULL WIDTH AND DEPTH OF RAMP. DOMES SHALL BE 3/8" HIGH, COLOR SHALL BE YELLOW * SEE WESTERLY CURB DETAIL, SHT 2 (G1) STRIPING NOTES n CONSTRUCT 4" PARKING STRIPE (WHITE) n CONSTRUCT 8" CROSS WALK STRIPE (WHITE) INFORMATION PARKING STALLS PROVIDED STORAGE BUILDING - 20'x14' (280 SF) FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 0 MANHOLE DETAIL 1 ' =5' 1 2 3 3,970 TONS 3,025 CY 4,300 LF 185 LF 656 SF 450 SF 9,090 SF 700 SF 46 EA 1,674 CY 21 EA 3 EA 6 EA 6 EA 1 EA 1 EA 1,050 LF 1 EA 18 EA QUANTITIES 10,876 LF 500 LF QUANTITIES 513 EA 1 EA RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS WDo# 833C355255 SCALE 1 "= 3 0' JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. SHEET 4 OF 1 4 SHEETS 1 1 1 I I I I „zz, ,,,,,,,,, 18' 18' I� 1 / 1BNt CHISEFED 8 ' Cif -TOP CUR (PRO-ECT IN i / mo IP c ►; ,411 ' ‘ 411`‘ _Apr- - . ---:ii-7. ';.--41-- �i= - -• / 11 1 1 1 (735 18' 18' (TYP) (TYP) 1.38% 23 REV. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. 24 1. SAND SHALL NOT BE USED 2• 3/4" MAXIMUM GRADATION GRAVEL Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm sston. 25 csiPM 3. INSPECT DAILY 4. IMMEDIATELY REPLACE ALL BROKEN BAGS FOR DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION OVERLAP ENDS OF BAGS 2" MIN I_on% ��������� •��������������� ti ti ti 11 12 ;2 ;2 :2 ti� 2. .20112 Oil:OP '/�A.<\` /k1 \// �'\/\/j,�/ice//\\// //`/\\�/\//.\//\\\�/.\//\/\\\/\ SINGLE GRAVEL BAG DETAIL NTS DESIGNED BY JVP DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 26 irharaidEmm 18' 24' i 18' (TYP) (TYP) RAMP OVER BAGS fr is 2, REMOVE ONE UPPER LEVEL BAG FOR WATER INLET \,( \ /4\/\\///, //\ //\\, \%//.%//\�///\// ;%//\///�//%/\.\ \//\,\\/ DOUBLE ROW SAND BAG NTS NOINEERINO ESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, Califomia 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: i".• FINISH SURFACE T� I�_ — u I TskA•1 _ J( �-71 RAMP OVER BAGS C X 1 18' 11 1"-3" COURSE GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC i / 4"x 4" WOOD BEAMS WITH #5 REBAR AT 6' O.C. BOTH SIDES NOTE: GRAVEL SHALL BE SWEPT BACK INTO PLACE AS NEEDED AND AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE WORK. 4"x 4" BEAMS AND REBAR SHALL BE REMOVED AND GRAVEL SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE. CONSTRUCT AC PAVEMENT PER GRADING PLAN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE / EXIT SECTION A —A Q NTS Mon Riverside County Transportation Commission EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. A STANDBY CREW FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. NECESSARY MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON -SITE AND STOCKPILED AT CONVENIENT LOCATIONS TO FACILITATE RAPID CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY DEVICES OR TO REPAIR ANY DAMAGED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT. 2. DEVICES SHALL NOT BE MOVED OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. 3. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY, WHEN THE FIVE-DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS 40 PERCENT. 4. AFTER A RAINSTORM, ALL SITE AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CHECK BERGS AND DESALTING BASINS. ANY GRADED SLOPE SURFACE PROTECTION MEASURES DAMAGED DURING A RAINSTORM SHALL ALSO BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED. 5. THE FACES OF CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE PREPARED AND MAINTAINED TO CONTROL AGAINST EROSION. EROSION PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF EFFECTIVE PLANTING OF ALL SLOPES IN EXCESS OF FIVE (5) FEET HIGH UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SLOPES EXCEEDING FIFTEEN (15) FEET HIGH MAY REQUIRE AN ADEQUATE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE SLOPE PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND PRIOR TO CALLING FOR FINAL INSPECTION. 6. FILL SLOPES AT THE PROJECT PERIMETER MUST DRAIN AWAY FROM THE TOP OF THE SLOPE AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH WORKING DAY. 7. PLACEMENT OF DEVICES TO REDUCE EROSION DAMAGE WITHIN THE PROJECT ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE RAINY SEASON (OCTOBER 15 THROUGH APRIL 15), AND ADDITIONALLY, PRIOR TO ANY FORECASTED STORM. 8. GRADED AREAS AROUND THE PROJECT PERIMETER MUST DRAIN AWAY FROM THE FACE OF SLOPE AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH WORKING DAY. 9. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION, DUST AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. 29 a. ALL MANUFACTURED SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 5 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION DURING ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS AND THEREAFTER UNTIL INSTALLATION OF FINAL GROUND COVER. b. ALL SLOPE PROTECTION SWALES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS BANKS ARE GRADED c. THE DEVELOPER AND HIS CONTRACTOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND SWPPP AND ALSO TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (e.g. HYDROSEEDING, MULCHING OF STRAW, SAND BAGGING, DIVERSION DITCHES, RETENTION BASINS, ECT.) DICTATED BY FIELD CONDITIONS TO PREVENT EROSION AND/OR THE INTRODUCTION OF DIRT, MUD OR DEBRIS INTO EXISTING PUBLIC STREET AND/OR ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. SPECIAL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NOTED ABOVE DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 15 TO APRIL 15. d. AFTER A RAINSTORM, ALL SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CHECK BERMS AND CHECK DAMS. SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FRO CITY OF RIVERSIDE STREETS. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL CITY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROJECT. LEGEND N At fitt tokt mil DOUBLE ROW SAND BAG SINGLE ROW GRAVEL BAG SILT SCREEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BREAKER BAR PLATES NOTE: NO TRACKING SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. PRIOR TO ENTERING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, CONTRACTOR IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT HAVE BEEN CLEANED AND ALL LOOSE DEBRIS, MUD AND DIRT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT ON SITE. EROSION CONTROL NOTES O1 INSTALL SINGLE ROW GRAVEL BAG BARRIER PER CASQA SWBMP HANDBOOK DETAIL SE6 AND EXHIBIT HERE —ON °INSTALL DOUBLE ROW SAND BAG BARRIER PER CASQA SWBMP HANDBOOK DETAIL SE8 AND EXHIBIT HERE —ON °INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CASQA SWBMP HANDBOOK DETAIL TR-1 AND EXHIBIT HERE —ON °INSTALL STEEL BREAKER BAR ASSEMBLY PER CASQA SWBMP HANDBOOK DETAIL TR-1 AND EXHIBIT HERE —ON °INSTALL TEMPORARY VEHICLE AND FUELING LOCATION PER CASQA SWBMP HANDBOOK DETAIL NS-9 AND EXHIBIT HERE —ON °INSTALL SILT FABRIC FENCE PER CASQA SWBMP HANDBOOK DETAIL SC-1 & WE-1 AND EXHIBIT HERE —ON STABILIZED ENTRANCE: 1. PROVIDE ENTRANCE AS SHOWN. 2. CHECK DAILY, REMOVE ACCUMULATED DEBRIS AND BUILD UP. 3. TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 4. 1 /2"-3/4" MAX. THICKNESS STEEL PLATE. STEEL BREAKER BAR ASSEMBLY NTS FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES I I I I SILT SCREEN FLOW r MIN 1 SILT FENCE DETAIL ° NTS FENCE POST 2 3 I RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION EROSION CONTROL PLAN WDID# 833C355255 SCALE 1 "= 3 0' JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. C3 SHEET 5 OF 1 4 SHEETS I i CONNECT TO EXISTING 2 1 /2" IRR LINE 28' — — 166 s\ 1 �= 18' 26' ao- CONNECT TO EXISTING 2 1 /2" IRR LINE 1 I /I' �11 II / AI 410TIA g CHISELED pFCDRB V OP 45.E 63P�,CE) / EPRp1ECT 1N 20' 1 1 1 (735) I 0/ I 10'x 10' RIPRAP 2 1 /2" PVC IRR LINE t 1.19% I I I 2 1 /2" PVC IRR USE a 11 1 10'x 11' RIPRAP L N t 18 L 24 �i- 18 (TYP) (TYP) (TYP (0 I I I 27 28 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 0 CONSTRUCT 0 CONSTRUCT 0 CONSTRUCT eCONSTRUCT 0 CONSTRUCT 0 CONSTRUCT 0 CONSTRUCT 26 CONSTRUCT 0 INSTALL 2" 0 0 CONSTRUCT CCTV 29 0 C 1 "=30' ESTIMATED QUANTITIES CATCH BASINS PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 405 (10') CATCH BASINS PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE STD 18" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE 24" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE 2 1/2" IRRIGATION LINE (FOR FUTURE) 2" IRRIGATION LINE (FOR FUTURE) 1" IRRIGATION LINE (FOR FUTURE) 405 (4') 12" THICK RIP RAP OUTLET STRUCTURE PER DIMENSIONS NOTED CONDUCT FOR FUTURE CCTV W/PULL ROPE PULL BOX * ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM LINE LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN SCHEMATIC. LOCATION TO CENTER OF PARKING SPACES ARE FOR FUTURE TREE DIAMONDS * ALL CCTV CONDUIT LINE LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN SCHEMATIC. LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 2 EA 2 EA 38 LF 170 LF 2,000 LF 360 LF 1,273 LF 2 EA 1,226 LF 6 EA WDID# 833C355255 /\ REV. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm sston. DESIGNED BY JVP DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT -R �N�61�IE9tlNG OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, Califomia 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE 1 "= 3 0' UTILITY PLAN JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. SHEET 6 OF 1 4 SHEETS 20'-0" 0 I I J k ott ott !t �t �t X L=200' 0" 1 36"W x 27"D 0 i•• N 4" SLAB OVER 2" SAND OVER 6 MIL VISQUEEN OVER 2" SAND FF 43.00 x 36"W x 27"D D lit It X 1 0 L=20'-0" FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 1/2"= 1'-0" 24'-0" 0 X D 7/8" 0 AB SIMPSON HDQ8—SDS3 SINGLE SHEAR WALL DOUBLE SHEAR WALL 7 0 0 I rn 0 I rn NOTE: ROOF DIAPHRAGM TO BE 1%2" PLYWOOD (8' x 4' S=CTIONS) W TH 2-INCH EDGE trAILING 12-INCH FIELD NAILI G USE SIMPSON H10 FOR EACH ROOF JOIST AT EACH END (TYPICAL) 2"x12" @ 2'-0" O.C. ROOF JOISTS ROOF BLOCKING SHALL BE AT 18" O.C. MIN., 30" O.C. MAX., AND SHALL BE STAGGERED SIMPSON CONNECTOR LSU26 EACH SIDE OF BEAM (TYPICAL) 4"x12" RIDGE BEAM iTRUCTURAL I TAGGERED JOINTS ALL EDGESANDi „.\\ 2'-0" _ OVER HANG (TYP) 7/7 I Q Lo J 0 I i� I N ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE 3/8"=1 —0' r 20'-0" 1 o I 3'x6' SINGLE METAL DOOR "x6" 2 "x 0 6" SEE. C7 FOR AB SPACING 0 I WALL / FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1 /2"= 1'-0" 20'-0" 2 — 2"x6" TOP PLATE (MATCH WALL STUD) USE SIMPSON LSU26 AT EACH END AND USE SIMPSON LPT4 ON EACH SIDE OF THE CEILING JOIST (TYPICAL) v 2 2'x10" CEILING JOISTS @ 2'-0" O.C. 6 "x 10" HEADER CEILING JOIST PLAN NOTE: UNDERSIDE CEILING INTERIOR TO BE COVERED WITH 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD. PAINT TO BE LOW VOC — COLOR TO BE DETERMINED BY RCTC. ROOFING MATERIAL PER SPECIFICATIONS. SCALE 3/8"=1-0' CEILING BLOCKING SHALL BE AT 18" O.C. MIN., 30" O.C. MAX., AND SHALL BE STAGGERED GENERAL NOTES Design Loads and Information Seismic Data per Sextion 1603.1.5 of 2007 CBC Basic Seismic Design Category: D (Table 1613.5.6(1)) Site Classification: D Basic Seismic Force Resisting System: Building frame system (Light Analysis Procedure Use: Equivalent lateral force procedure (ASCE Ss = Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration SI = Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration I = Seismic Importance Factor Sds = Spectral Response Coefficient Sal = Spectral Response Coefficient R = Response Modification Factor Cs = Seismic Response Coefficients Design Factors and Coefficients Ss = 0.15 SI = 0.04 I = 1.0 Sds = 0.16 Sal = 0.07 R = 6.5 Cs = 0.08 max Cs = 0.01 min Wind Data per Section 1603.1.4 of 2007 CBC Basic Wind Speed (3 Second Gust): V3S = 85 MPH Basic Wind Speed (Fastest Mile): Vfm = 71 MPH Wind Exposure Category: C (ASCE 7 Table 6-3) Occupancy Group II Cnet is obtained from Table 1609.6.2(2) qs = Wind Speed Coefficient I = Wind Importance Factor Kz = Wind Exposure Kzt = Wind Exposure Terrain Cnet = Internal Pressure Coefficient Design Factors and Coefficients qs = 18.5 I = 1.0 Kz = 0.85 Kzt = 1.0 (not Cnet within a hilly area) Wall Windward; 0.45 Leeward: —0.51 SidewaII; —0.66 Cnet Cladding and Components Positive: 0.41 Negative: —0.92 framed 7 section SPECIAL NOTES TO CONTRACTOR 1. ALL COLUMN BASES, COLUMN BOLTING, HOLD—DOWN STRAPS AND HOLD—DOWN BOLTS, CRITICAL TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THIS BUILDING, SHALL BE HELD IN PLACE BY MEANS OF TEMPLATES PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION. 2. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1704 OF THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 3. ALL A325 BOLT CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COMPRESSION WASHERS 4. 1/4" MINIMUM EXPOSED THREAD REQUIRED AT NUT END OF ALL BOLTS NOTE ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL MUST E SUPPLIED BY A CITY OF RIVERSIDE APPORVED FABRICATION SHOP AND ALL WELDING PERFORMED ON —SITE SHALL BE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF A CITY OF RIVERSIDE APPROVED SPECIAL INSPECTOR PER 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SECTIONS 1704.2 AND 1704.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS CONCRETE: 3,000 PSI © 28 DAYS WOOD: STEEL: REBAR #6 GRADE 60 1 (MIN) STEEL 7/8" DIAMTER "J" BOLT — A325 3"x3"x0.229" SQUARE WASHER — A36 (MIN) 6x6x10 WWM — A36 (MIN) 7/8" 0 AB — A325 walls with shear panels) 12.8=> V=CsW) 2"x12" ROOF MEMBERS — DOUGLAS FIR 2"x10" ROOF MEMBERS — DOUGLAS FIR 6"x10" ROOF HEADER MEMBERS — ROUGH SAWN 6"x6" CORNER WALL MEMBERS — ROUGH SAWN 2"x6" WALL MEMBERS — ROUGH SAWN 2"x6" SILL PLATES — PRESSURE TREATED OR RED WOOD LUMBER 4"x12" RIDGE BEAM PLYWOOD SHEATHING — 15/32" STRUCTURAL NO. 1 DFL SIMPSON STRUCTURE CONNECTORS - AS REQ'D SIMPSON HUC0612—SD5 HEADER CONNECTOR SIMPSON H8 CONNECTOR SIMPSON H10A CONNECTOR SIMPSON HD5 CONNECTOR FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES SIMPSON LUS26 CONNECTOR SIMPSON HDQ8—SDS3 CONNECTOR SIMPSON H6 CONNECTOR SIMPSON LPT4 CONNECTOR 2 3 WDID# 833C355255 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi- cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm IssIon. DESIGNED BY BKT DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY BKT .H1ENGINEERING ESOIIRCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bemardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/10 DATE: inn IIIMN Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE AS SHOWN STORAGE BUILDING PLAN JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. C5 SHEET 7 OF 1 4 SHEETS 15/32" EXTERIOR PLYWOOD ROOFING MATERIALS [." OVER 2'-0" 1 HANG (TYP) • • 12" RAFTERS @ R-30 INSULATION 2"X 10" CEILING JOIST @ 24" O.C. R-19 INSULATION FF 43.00 • • is0 CAI 4"x 12" RIDGE BEAM 2"X 4" KING POST EVERY OTHER RAFTER 1 "x 6" COLLAR BEAM EVERY OTHER RAFTER REMOVE ALL MATERIAL 24" BELOW SLAB, SCARIFY AND PLACE NATIVE MATERIAL OR APPROVED IMPORT TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION SEE SECTION A ON SHT C2 FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 1/2"= 1'-0" 36" oo 4"x 12" RIDGE BEAM 12"x 18" VENT x APPLY STUCCO OVER —COAT, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ON —SITE BUILDINGS APPLY STUCCO OVER —COAT, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ON —SITE BUILDINGS I I I IT r 1 r I f ! 1 �1 L I ! I J L 1 1 L J LL I I J II I 2'-0" OVERHANG (TYP) APPLY STUCCO OVER —COAT, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ON —SITE BUILDINGS NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1 /2"= 1 '-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1 /2"= 1 '-0" 2"X 10" CEILING JOISTS @ 24" O.C. BUILT UP ROOF PER SPECIFICATIONS 2"X 12" ROOF RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. 15/32" EXTERIORPLYWOOD ROOF DECK 2»BLOCKING V 2"X R-30 INSULATION 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD 2-2"X 6" TOP PLATE R-19 INSULATION 2 X 6 @ 16" O.C. STUDWALL 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD FINISH FLOOR TROWEL FINISH METAL FASCIA METAL FLASHING APPLY STUCCO OVER —COAT, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ON —SITE BUILDINGS 36" Cn N TYPICAL WALL SECTION DETAIL SCALE 1 /2"= 1 '-0" 2 N FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 WDID# 833C355255 / / / / / / / / // / / / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm IssIon. DESIGNED BY BKT DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY BKT .H1ENGINEERING ESOIIRCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bemardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/10 DATE: inn Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE AS SHOWN STORAGE BUILDING ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. C6 SHEET 8 OF 14 SHEETS USE SIMPSON LUS26 EACH 2"X 6" SAWN LUMBER DOUBLE TOP PLATE 2"X 6" SAWN LUMBER WALL STUD 2"X 6" PRESSURE TREATED SILL PLATE SIMPSON HDS HOLD DOWN TIE AS NOTED — ,11 2"X 6" PRESSURE TREATED SILL PLATE 4" SLAB OVER 6—MIL VAPOR BARRIER & 4" CLEAN, MOIST SAND �J CONVENTION SHEAR WALL CONSTRUCTION ENTIRE LENGTH OF WALL NEW 36" X 27" CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION l5 ef i� N 14' WEST WALL NTS 2"X 6" BLOCKING ® 18" OC — STAGGERED (TYP) 6"X 6" SAWN LUMBER CORNER WALL STUD (TYP) 2"X 6" SAWN LUMBER DOUBLE TOP PLATE WALL OR CONVENTION SHEAR WALL CONSTRUCTION ENTIRE LENGTH OF WALL 2"X 6" PRESSURE TREATED SILL PLATE SIMPSON HD5 HOLD DOWN TIE ® 4" O.C. 5'-6" 3'-0" 5'-6" 2"X 6" SAWN LUMBER DOUBLE TOP PLATE 2"X 6" ® 16" OC 2"X 6" SAWN LUMBER WALL STUD (O 16" OC) 6'x 10" HEADER 1 — 2"x 6" DOOR FRAMING STUD / CC NVENTION SHEA Z WALL GCNSTRUCTION ENTIRE 1 — 2"x 6" '// LENGTH OF WALL JACK STUD (TYP) CON\/ =NTION SF CONS ffUCTION EAR WA,L�� ENTIRE LENGTFI OF WALL 7/8" 0 NEW 36"X 27" CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION ily," STUD OR SHEAR WALL 2"X 6" PRESSURE TREATED SILL PLATE F.F. 6"X 6"X 10" WWM © CENTER 45` CHAMFER • EAST WALL NTS 7/8" 0 ANCHOR "J" BOLT PER SHEAR WALL DATA ON SHEET C8. LEAVE 1/4" THREAD EXPOSED AT TOP OF NUT; 24" EMBEDMENT. USE 3"X 3"X 0.229" SQUARE WASHER BETWEEN NUT AND SILL PLATE. A MINIMUM OF 2 ANCHOR BOLTS PER SILL PLATE SHALL BE USED AND SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 12" NO LESS THAN 4" FROM THE EDGE. (CBC 2007 SECTIONS 2305.3.11 & 2308.6). F.G. CO • 4111.--"':� 2 — #6 BAR TOP & BOTTOM 36" 3" MIN. COVER 36"X 27" CONCRETE FOOTING 3,000 PSI CONCRETE CO 28—DAYS FOUNDATION SECTION i� N NTS R s " 11 r- N 2"X 6" BLOCKING ® 18" OC — STAGGERED (TYP) SIMPSON HOLD DOWN TIE AS NOTED SPLICE SPLICE OVERLAP • • • • • • • • • • • 2" X 6" SAWN LUMBER WALL STUD (®16" OC) NEW 36" X 27" CONTI UOUS FOUNDATION TYPICAL 1 i32" STRUCTURAL I PLYWOOD 2" EDGE NAILING ALONG ALL EDGES 12" FIELD NAILING (TYPICAL ALL SHEAR WALLS) 7/8" 0 ANCHOR "J" BOLT PER SHEAR WALL DATA ON SHEET C8. LEAVE 1/4" THREAD EXPOSED AT TOP OF NUT; 24" EMBEDMENT. USE 3"X 3"X 0.229" SQUARE WASHER BETWEEN NUT AND SILL PLATE. A MINIMUM OF 2 ANCHOR BOLTS PER SILL PLATE SHALL BE USED AND SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 12" NO LESS THAN 4" FROM THE EDGE. (CBC 2007 SECTIONS 2305.3.11 & 2308.6). NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS NTS 2"x6" PRESSURE TREATED SILL PLATE 4" 4" 2" Z re- SPLICE 16d COMMON NAIL (TYP) • • • • • • • • • • 48" MINIMUM LAP FOR SPLICE 2 ROWS OF 12 16d COMMON NAILS TOP PLATE SPLICE DETAIL NTS PROFILE VIER 2 — 2"x6" TOP PLATE (MATCH WALL STUD) i� N USE SIMPSON LUS26 EACH JOIST + LPT4 EACH SIDE OF JOIST AT EACH END USE SIMPSON EACH STUD USE SIMPSCN H10A CONNECTOR EACH RAFTER AT TOP PLATE SIDE OF RIDGE BEAM H6 CCNNECTC USE SIMPSON LPT4 EACH SIDE TOP AND BOTTOM R • • • • 1%2" STRUCTURAL I PLYWOOD SHEATHING (8'x4') PANELS — USE STAGGERED JOINTS USE SIMPSON HDQ8—SDS3 AT EACH CORNER EAST AND WEST SECTIONS • • • • USE SIMPSON HD5 EVERY OTHER STUD & H8 AT EACH STUD NTS USE SIMPSON LUS26 EACH SIDE OF RIDGE BEAM [C_ __I _ I_ __I_ 1 —I— 1.J— 1-1—J.—L_I—L—L-1-1LJ.—L__I—LJ-1-1-1 5/8" TYPE X CORE GYP BOARD (TYP) lti l5 l�, lti FRAMING PLAN NTS CONVENTIONAL SHEAR WALL CONSTRUCTION EACH SHEAR WALL MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS: 15/32—INCH PLYWOOD SHEATHING — STRUCTURAL I 10d COMMON NAIL — 1 AND 1 /2—INCH PENETRATION EDGE NAILING: 2—INCH OC ALONG ALL EDGES ON ALL WALLS FIELD NAILING: 12—INCH FOOTING 36 INCH x 31" 2—#8 T&B ANCHORAGE: 7/8—INCH 0 x 28—INCH AB NORTH WALL EAST WALL — SOUTH WALL WEST WALL — — 20" OC 20" OC — 20" OC 5'-6" SECTION — DOUBLE WOOD SHEAR WALL USE ABs AT 10" OC SIMPSON STELL SHEAR WEST WALL 3'-6" SECTION — SSW 2'-0" SECTION — SSW WALL CONSTRUCTION 21 "x10" — ABs PER SIMPSON REQUIREMENTS 24"x10" — ABs PER SIMPSON REQUIREMENTS 7 L L —J—J 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r, USE SIMPSON H6 CONNECTOR EACH STUD USE EACH USE SIMPSO RAFTER AT T 1 STRUCTURAL I PLYWOOD i32" 2" EDGE NAILING ALONG ALL EDGES 12" FIELD NAILING (TYPICAL ALL SHEAR WALLS) d X USE SIMPSON HD5 EVERY OTHER STUD & USE SIMPSON HDQ8—SDS3 AT EACH CORNER H8 AT EACH STUD NORTH AND SOUTH SECTIONS NTS FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 2'-0" OVERHANG (TYP) IMPSON LUS26 RAFTER J H10A EACH OP PLATE / / / / / / / / / / / / / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm sston. DESIGNED BY B KT DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT ENGINEERING ESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE NTS STORAGE BUILDING DETAILS JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. C7 SHEET 9 OF 1 4 SHEETS SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS $ A AMPERES, AMMETER ICTO INSTANTANEOUS CLOSE TIME R RELAY AC ALTERNATING CURRENT DELAY OPENING READ REQUIRED AF AMPERE FRAME RGS RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL CONDUIT AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR JB JUNCTION BOX AIC AMPERES INTERRUPTING CAPACITY SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. AR ALARM RELAY KVA KILO VOLT—AMPERE SCH SCHEDULE AT AMPERE TRIP KWH KILOWATTKW SEC SECONDARY, SECONDS AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE SEL SELECTOR SF SEAL FAILURE BC BARE COPPER CONDUCTOR L LOAD SH SHIELD BKR BREAKER LS LEVEL SWITCH (FLOAT) SPEC SPECIFICATIONS LTG LIGHTING SPDT SINGLE POLE, DOUBLE THROW C CONDUIT LOS LOCK —OUT —STOP SPST SINGLE POLE, SINGLE THROW SELECTOR SWITCH L CB CIRCUIT BREAKER SS S E E CO CONDUIT ONLY M MOTOR SW SWITCH CONT CONTROL MAX MAXIMUM CR CONTROL RELAY T1 TRANSFORMER NO. 1 MCP MOTOR CIRCUIT PROTECTOR TB TERMINAL BLOCK CU COPPER MIN MINIMUM TDAE TIME DELAY AFTER ENERGIZATION DC DIRECT CURRENT MTD MOUNTED TDR TIME DELAY RELAY MTG HT MOUNTING HEIGHT TEL TELEPHONE DET DETAIL MS MOTOR STARTER TOAE TIME TO OPEN AFTER ENERGIZATION DIAG DIAGRAM MSC MANUFACTURER SUPPLIED CABLE TRANSF. TRANSFORMER TS TEMPERATURE SWITCH (E) EXISTING (N) NEW TYP TYPICAL (ER) EXISTING TO REMAIN EL ELEVATION N NORMAL UFER CONCRETE ENCASED GROUNDING SYSTEM N/A NOT APPLICABLE UG UNDERGROUND ENCL ENCLOSURE/ENCLOSED NC NORMALLY CLOSED UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EQUIP EQUIPMENT NIC NOT IN CONTRACT ETM ELAPSED TIME METER NO NORMALLY OPEN V VOLTS EXIST EXISTING NTS NOT TO SCALE VA VOLT —AMPS FIN FINISHED OC ON CENTER W/ WITH FLEX FLEXIBLE OL'S OVERLOADS WM WATTMETER FUT FUTURE W/O WITHOUT P POLE, PHASE WP WEATHERPROOF G GREEN GROUND CONDUCTOR PB PULL BOX, PUSH BUTTON GALV GALVANIZED PCP PUMP CONTROL PANEL XFMR TRANSFORMER GND GROUND PE PHOTOELECTRIC CONTROL GEN GENERATOR PFR POWER FAILURE RELAY PNL PANEL HP HORSE POWER PRI PRIMARY HT HEIGHT PROVIDE FURNISH, INSTALL & CONNECT Hz HERTZ (CYCLES PER SECOND) PV PHOTOVOLTAIC CELL HOA HAND/OFF/AUTO PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PWR POWER TRANSFORMER CONNECTION TOGGLE SWITCH, 3—INDICATES 3—WAY NORMALLY OPEN PUSHBUTTON, 0 Y 3 _i_ — (DELTA—WYE W/GROUNDED NEUTRAL) MOMENTARY TYPE iti FLEXIBLE CONDUIT CONNECTION > INCOMING LINE —cr"---0— ® GROUND WELL PRESSURE SWITCH 11 LINE SWITCH DISCONNECT — (30A, 3 POLE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) NF INDICATES NON —FUSED NF �0— KILOWATT HOUR METER O GROUND ROD 3/4" X 10'-0" COPPER CLAD fill(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) FLOAT SWITCH b 70A THERMAL MAGNETIC BREAKER, 70 INDICATES TRIP SIZE, 3P INDICATES NO. OF POLES, MCP INDICATES to JUNCTION BOX OR CONDUIT FITTING 3P NORMALLY OPEN CONTACT MAGNETIC ONLY (MOTOR CIRCUIT PROTECTOR) © © METER, MOTOR (NUMBER INDICATES HORSEPOWER) / NORMALLY CLOSED CONTACT CONDUIT RUN EXPOSED O INDICATING LIGHT G — GREEN, R — RED (10) CONDUIT RUN, FULL STROKE DESIGNATES PHASE WIRE, CONDUIT RUN, IN SLAB OR BELOW GRADE HALF STROKE INDICATES NEUTRAL WIRE, CONDUIT FILL //l PER CODE OR MIN. SIZE CONDUIT AS PERMITTED ON FROM ETM ELAPSED TIME METER • CONDUIT BENDS AWAY OBSERVER PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS. NUMBER ABOVE CROSSED LINES INDICATES WIRE SIZE OTHER THAN #12 0 CONDUIT BENDS TOWARD OBSERVER (10) TD TIME DELAY RELAY, R — CONTROL RELAY CONDUIT HOMERUN TO PANEL "A" NUMBER CIRCUITS 1 & 3 (COMMON NEUTRAL) D CONDUIT RUN — CHANGE IN ELEVATION A-1,3 H O REFERENCE NOTES, NUMBER INDICATES NOTE NUMBER __A__A...A...) G GROUND WIRE OR BUS O o HAND/OFF/AUTO SEL. SWITCH 0 SEAL FAIL SWITCH TRANSFORMER �-YYYm / 0 TEMPERATURE SWITCH I' I CONDUIT SEAL FITTINGS FIXTURE SCHEDULE FIXTURE SCHEDULE TYPE DESCRIPTION MOUNTING VOLTS NO. OF LAMPS LAMP TYPE TOTAL WATTS MANUFACTURER AND CATALOG NUMBER REMARKS GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH 6. TEST ALL PARTS, CONNECTIONS AND COORDINATE WITH NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, LATEST EDITION AND LOCAL RULES EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER AND DEMONSTRATE TO AND REGULATIONS OF GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. OWNER THAT THE EQUIPMENT OPERATES PROPERLY. 2. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW AND SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED. 7. USE FLEXIBLE LIQUIDTIGHT CONDUITS FOR SHORT ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE UL LISTED FOR THE INTENDED USE. TERMINATIONS SUBJECT TO VIBRATION. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE, DETERMINE ALL WORK 8. ALL WIRING SHALL BE COPPER, SIZES AS NOTED. TO BE DONE AND FIELD CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE WORK AND THE COST THEREOF AND INCLUDE THEM IN HIS BID. 9. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES BEFORE EXCAVATION. ANY DAMAGES DONE TO 4. CONDUITS INSTALLED IN EXPOSED LOCATIONS, SHALL BE EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE REPLACED, OR REPAIRED, PVC COATED, RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL CONDUITS. PROMPTLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. 5. ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. COORDINATE 10. GROUND ALL METAL BOXES AND ENCLOSURES PER LOCATION OF FIXTURES, J—BOX ETC., WITH ACTUAL LAYOUT NCE ART. 250. AND ARRANGEMENTS. FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 1 2 3 WD ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES I I I I 833C355255ID A POLE MOUNTED ROUND HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LIGHTING 35' POLE 480V 1 250W HPS 275W U.S. ARCHITECTURAL DARK GREEN COLOR TO MATCH 150 FIXTURE, ONE PIECE FORMED ALUMINUM BODY, 18 GAUGE, WITH DIE CAST ALUMINUM DOOR WITH CONTINUOS HINGES, TEMPERED LIGHTING CAT# APG—S19—HR-11-250 'LUMEC' GN4 GLASS, COMPLETE WITH LAMPS, MULTITAP BALLAST, 35 FOOT SQUARE STEEL POLE AND BASE, ANCHOR BOLTS ETC.. HPS WITH 35' SQUARE POLE, SPRT 35J/1A, OR EQUAL Al SIMILAR TO TYPE 'A' FIXTURE EXCEPT WITH TWIN ARM AND TWO 35' POLE 480V 2 250W HPS 550W U.S. ARCHITECTURAL DARK GREEN 150 LUMINAIRES. LIGHTING CAT# (2) COLOR TO MATCH 'LUMEC' PENDANT 120 2 F96T8/HO 240 APG—S19—HR-1V—W-250 HPS WITH 35' SQUARE POLE, SPRT 35J/1A, OR EQUAL LITHONIA CAT. GN4 WRAP AROUND g PENDANT MOUNTED FLUORESCENT FIXTURE, 8' LONG MOLDED HIGH IMPACT RESISTANT ABS PLASTIC HOUSING WITH HIGH 800MA # DD-296H0A—WLFES WITH FIXTURE IMPACT ACRYLIC DIFFUSER, WITH CAPTIVE LATCHES, COMPLETELY STEM HANGERS, OR GASKETED AND ENCLOSED SUITABLE FOR WET AND CORROSIVE LOCATIONS. EQUAL ALL FIXTURES SHALL BE COMPLETED WITH LAMPS AND HIGH POWER FACTOR BALLASTS. QROFESSI pyq� MB [Ks BALAN �dE/ER � Expire 3/31 4� � vS B��T� FJrOM ORBA➢8Sna2000G:LCANQA�BVD.. SUITE 106 /2 eNFOo. CF TER9CP\0 F� , /\ / / alloplansodrawingsnspecifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside county Trans ortation Commission; shall p nfidential; e held bco and shall not be used for any purpose not provided Riverside Cou�tnts with the v Transportat1on Comm 1sslon. DESIGNED BY MB 1 NOINEERING 1820 Commercenter Circle I; Riverside 111111111111 County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE PARKING LA SIERRA LOT M EXPANSION ETRO LI N K STATION SCALE NONE 00ESS/oN O K T �� LPN yob F2 � � 9 �' " m N z m 1-.1 No. ccc � . 12 31710 n, * P' s+T C/V1k. •P 9TF OF CA�� /\ / / DRAWN BY JG JOB NO. 97009.006 / / — OF SOUTHERN ESOURCES CALIFORNIA, San Bernardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 INC. /� / / CHECKED BY BKT / / PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: DWG. NO. E1 SYMBOLS,ABBREVIATION FIXTURES, SCHEDULE, AND NOTES IN CHARGE /\ / / BRIAN K. THOMAS DATE: REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/10 SHEET 1 0OF1 4 SHEETS /\ / / DATE AUG 2009 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. INCOMING SERVICE r CITY OR RIVERSIDE PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER MAIN SERVICE CENTER 'MSC-1' (NEMA 3R) 200A, 480V, 3PH, 3W, 60HZ AC (50,000 AIC) 17 3 >- 1 90" MAX. U.C. PULL SECTION 0 METERING AND 2 J 200 AMP PP-1 480V 3PH L----J L POWER PANEL PP-1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM NO SCALE 12'-8" MAX. (/') J O 00 O N O N O 00 60A Ct W Ct O Li Z a CCm ~ U cn W 0- <rr) Y�Q � o d-re) (.0 4 32" 32" 32" 32" 24" 4 1 3 45KVA TRANSFORMER 4 5 LTG. CONTROL SECTION SEE DWG E4 6 PP-1 LPA 2 SPACE MAIN SERVICE CENTER 'MSC-1' (NEMA 3R) O ELEVATION NO SCALE Lv Q a_ Q J ^ O , 0 W Z coQ O CL �� � J w Ct N 2" (TYP.) d / ALL AROUND 5 LTG. CONTROL SECTION SEE DWG E4 LTG. CONTROL SECTION NOTES: 61 J (i) NEMA 3R ENCL. NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. /\ / / / / / / / / // / / / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Commission, DESIGNED BY MB DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT R OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bemardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/10 DATE: CONCRETE WALK 3/4" X 10'-0" LONG COPPER CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD IN GROUND WELL, SEE DET. B/E-9 NEMA 3R ENCL. 3 POINT LATCH \�j\ \\-\\,\\,\\,\\/ / 36" MAX. 30" MAX. a e a a 2" MP.) ALL AROUND 3 1 /2" MP.) i\\i\\i\\i\\i\\i\ A /� \\i\\i\\i\\i\\i\\i\\\i\\\\\ #2/0 UFER GROUND 8" CONC. MSC-1 PAD AND GROUNDING DETAIL NO SCALE ELECTRICAL LOAD SCHEDULE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION NORMAL (SCE) HP IFL(AMP.) kVA 1 PP-1 145 121 2 LTG. TRANSFORMER 54 45 3 4 - - 5 6 7 8 TOTAL CONNECTED LOAD 200 166 M B MARK BALAN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS 19871 YORBA LINDA BLVD., SUITE 105 YORBA LINDA, CA92886 (714) 970-2000 Riverside County Transportation Commission FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES #6 AWG WIRE MESH (12" O.C.) 2 3 WDID# 833C355255 RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE NONE SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMS LOAD SCHEDULE AND ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. E2 SHEET 1 1 OF 1 4 SHEETS I 0 NEW PME SWITCH PAD MINI POWER CENTER (MPC), SEE E5 EXISTING CONDUIT CABLE (CITY OF RIVERSIDE) EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED BY TELEPHONE COMPANY REV. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / DATE I t 1\i ONEW INTERCEPTIN PULL BOX -1 QED III�TBM -TOP 63' . �(,P RDT 22 DESCRIPTION EXISTING UTILITY POLE f I NEW RISER POLE _ �IERMINATE O.H. LI E)_ (735) NEW GUYWIRE SUPPORTS NEW STORAGE BUILD, SEE E5 SHT C5 & C6 23 EPB-2 1 I 24 EXISTING CONDUIT/CABLE TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSFORMER BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Commission. I I I DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY MR JG CHECKED BY BKT IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 I I 2"C-2#6, 1 #8GND EPB 2 I POWER AND LIGHTING PLAN RNGINEERING ESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: SCALE: 1 "=30' 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/10 DATE: I I I <>NEW SERVICE TRANSFORMER PAD 2"C-2#6, 1 #8GND 2� No. E9420 Expires 3/31 /12 �ECTR�� OF 60 MB I 4" C.O. EPB-1 (1 1 "X12"X12"D) MAIN SERVICE CENTER 1 (MSC-1) NEMA 3R LIGHTING CONTROLLER \-- 1,2 Al CONTACTOR 1 11�� 1 1 11 11 II 28 11 11 11 11� MARK BALAN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS 19871 YORBA LINDA BLVD., SUITE 105 YORBA LINDA, CA 92886 (714) 970-2000 Riverside County Transportation Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES PROVIDE NEW INTERCEPTING POLE (PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S REQUIREMENTS) TO TERMINATE OVER HEAD LINE. PROVIDE GUYWIRE FOR POLE PROVIDE PME PAD PER CITY OR RIVERSIDE'S REQUIREMENTS PROVIDE 3'x4'x4'D PULL BOX TO INTERCEPT EXISTING FEEDER CONDUIT FROM POLE. COORDINATE AND COMPLY WITH CITY OR RIVERSIDE'S REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXISTING EQUIPMENT IS REFED VIA UNDERGROUND CONDUIT/CABLE SYSTEM AND IS FULLY OPERATIONAL, DISCONNECT AND REMOVE OVER HEAD LINES AND ALL ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT PROVIDE TRANSFORMER PAD GROUNDING ETC., PER CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S REQUIREMENTS CONTACT TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR RELOCATION/REMOVAL OF EXISTING OVER HEAD LINES PROVIDE LED DISPLAY MONUMENT AND SYSTEM PER SPECIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION NOTES ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 35 INSTALL 2" 0 CONDUCT FOR FUTURE CCTV W/PULL ROPE 36 CONSTRUCT CCTV PULL BOX (11 "X12"X12"D) 29 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 0 1 2 RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION POWER AND LIGHTING PLAN 1,226 LF 6 EA WDID# 833C355255 SCALE 1 "=30' JOB N0. 97009.006 DWG. NO. E3 SHEET 12OF 14 SHEETS L CIRCUIT LPA-1 (12" AWG) 120 VAC N SELECTOR SWITCH OFF HAND ,\ AUTO Ir IZ • PHOTOCELL RUN 1/2"C,-3 #12, MOUNT TO ROOF OF MSC-1 NOTE: 6 P❑LE,600V ELECTRICALLY OPERATED, MECHANICAL HELD 20A LIGHTING CONTACTOR WITH S❑LID STATE CONTROL MODULE (TYPICAL OF FOUR) MOUNT ALL EQUIPMENT IN LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL CHANNEL 1 C NO NC 1 • CHANNEL 2 C NO NC 1 • CHANNEL 3 C NO NC 1 • CHANEL 4 C NO NC 1 • ALL NIGHT ON HALF NIGHT ON SPARE SPARE I— PP-1 I— PP-3 I— PP-5 I— PP-7 I— SPARE I— SPARE I— PP-2 I— PP-4 I— PP-6 IPP8 I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE I— SPARE TIME SWITCH 4 POLE-4 CHANEL ELECTR❑NIC PR❑GRAMMING T❑RK Z400B OR EQUAL CONTROL WIRING DIAGRAM FOR STATION AND PARKING LOT LIGHTING NOT TO SCALE CHANNEL N❑=1 CONTACTOR (ALL NIGHT ON 7 PM ON 7 AM OFF) CHANNEL N❑:2 CONTACTOR (HALF NIGHT 4,30 AM ON 10 PM OFF) CHANNEL N❑:3 CONTACTOR CHANNEL N❑:4 CONTACTOR 20A 2P 20A 2P 90A 3P MOUNTING PANEL 30,000 NC PAN STM EL PP-1 LOCATION 200 MSC-1 VOLTAGE 480/277V,30,4W AM P BUS 175 MAI N CB LOCATION AMPERES AMPERES LOCATION OA OB OC LTG REC MISCPOLE BKR CIR CIR BKR POLEMISC REC LTG OA OB OC CH-NO:1 CONTACTOR 1100 8 1 20 1 2 20 1 4 550 CH-NO:2 CONTACTOR m� CH-NO:1 CONTACTOR 1100 1 20 3 4 20 1 550 CH-NO:2 CONTACTOR �• CH-NO:1 CONTACTOR 1512 11 1 20 5 6 20 1 7 963 CH-NO:2 CONTACTOR CH-NO:1 CONTACTOR 1513 1 20 7 8 20 1 963 CH-NO:2 CONTACTOR m� SPACE - 1 20 9 10 20 1 5000 MINI POWER CENTER �• SPACE - 1 20 11 12 20 1 5000 MINI POWER CENTER SPACE - 1 20 13 14 20 1 - SPACE m� SPACE - 1 20 15 16 20 1 - SPACE m. SPACE - 1 20 17 18 20 1 - SPACE SPACE - 1 20 19 20 20 1 - SPACE m� SPACE - 1 20 21 22 20 1 - SPACE m. SPACE - 1 20 23 24 20 1 - SPACE A PER PHASE 2613 1100 1512 1513 5550 5963 A PER PHASE CONNECTED LOAD 18250 x 1.25 + OTHER LOAD = 22812.5 VA VA VA 27 12.4 AMPS TOTAL A PER PHASE 4126 6150 7475 TOTAL = - TOTAL CON N ECTED VA 18250 = 22812.5 MOUNTING PANEL 14,000 NC PAN STM EL LPA LOCATION 225 MSC-1 VOLTAGE 120/208V,3PH,4W AM P BUS 125 MAI N CB LOCATION VOLTS —AMPERES VOLTS —AMPERES LOCATION OA OB OC LTG REC MISCPOLE BKR CIR CIR BKR POLEMISC REC LTG OA OB OC OUTDOOR DISPLY (FUT) 10,000 1 1 90 1 2 40 2 1 - SPACE •� OUTDOOR DISPLY (FUT) 10,000 5 1 90 3 4 20 - - - SPACE �• OUTDOOR DISPLY (FUT) 10,000 5 1 90 5 6 20 1 - SPACE SPACE - 1 20 7 8 20 1 - SPACE m� SPACE - 1 20 9 10 20 1 - SPACE m. SPACE - 1 20 11 12 20 1 - SPACE SPACE - 1 20 13 14 20 1 - SPACE m� SPACE - 1 20 15 16 20 1 - SPACE m. SPACE - 1 20 17 18 20 1 - SPACE SPACE - 1 20 19 20 20 1 - SPACE m� SPACE - 1 20 21 22 20 1 - SPACE m. SPACE - 1 20 23 24 20 1 - SPACE �■ SPACE - 1 20 25 26 20 1 - SPACE m� SPACE - 1 20 27 28 20 1 - SPACE ■. SPACE - 1 20 29 30 20 1 - SPACE A PER PHASE 10,000 10,000 10,000 A PER PHASE CONNECTED LOAD 30,000 x 1.25 + OTHER LOAD = 37,500 VA VA VA 104 AMPS TOTAL VA PER PHASE 10000 10000 10000 TOTAL = - TOTAL CON N ECTED VA 30000 = 37,500 MB Mwwc eALAw a assocwTEs &A CONSULTING ENGINEERS 19871 YORBA UNDA BLVD., SUITE 105 YORBA LINDA. CA 92888 (714) 970.9000 FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 1 2 3 i SOP 20A 2P 20A 2P WDID# 833C355255 /\ / / / / / / / / // / / / / REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Comm ss on. DESIGNED BY MB DRAWN BY JG CHECKED BY B KT (ENGINEERING E50URl;ES OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA, INC. 1820 Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, California 92408-3430 (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 IN CHARGE DATE AUG 2009 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: BRIAN K. THOMAS REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31 /10 DATE: 14.1 IIMN Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SCALE NONE LIGHTING CONTROLS AND PANEL SCHEDULE JOB NO. 97009.006 DWG. NO. E4 SHEET 130F 1 4 SHEETS TYPE 'A' PROVIDE CAP LUMINAIRE FINISHED GRADE 14» MONUMENT CASE WITH "GROUND" LEGEND CAST GROUND CONDUCTOR (IN CONDUIT WHERE EXPOSED TO PHYSICAL,/ - ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT GROUND BUS OR LUG INTO COVER. (BOLTED 4" SQUARE POLE 35'-0"�� „ 4 X 3 HANDHOLE OPENING W/GASKETED COVER AND PAINT TO BOLTED GROUND ROD _ COVER W/SST BOLTS) CLAMP BURNDY TYPE >//%�' n �/ ��� DAMAGED) _— GROUND CONNECTION GAR OR TYPE - GP. ANDERSON ELECTRIC TYPES _ BARE COPPER CONTINUOUS GROUND BONDED TO METALLIC GROUND CONNECTION #2/0 BC COLD WATER PIPING SYSTEM WHERE GC-111 OR �' WIRE FOR MULTIPLE GC-115 OR ROD INSTALLATIONS. GRADE `=• AVAILABLE EQUAL BARE COPPER WIRE TO EQUIPMENT%���% � l / MATCH FINISH GRADE O NOT MORE THAN 3" OR , 0 ��� LESS THAN 1 " WHERE ��`�� 20 OR MORE a %��\X\0\%,�\ \ �-- ��� \� �\\� T 1" GROUT MIN. CONCRETE IS IN DIRECT as GROUNDS "\ \\�`�� �" 3/4"0 X 10'-0" COPPER V ��� � \ /j FINISH GRADE #2/0 BC GROUND WIRE CONCRETE FOUNDATION MIN. FROM REBAR) CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD GROUND ROD AND WELL DETAIL B 4-1" X 24" X 3" „ .vei » 24 ' - (3" OR FOOTING CONCRETE ENCASED UFER GROUND DETAIL (c) GALV. ANCHOR BOLTS 30"MIN. 3'-6" 4#5 ONE AT EACH CORNER 3» it IF 2„ 4 #5 ONE AT EACH CORNER 1'-6" CONDUIT SQ. „ #3 HOOPS (4 12 CENTERS NO SCALE TYP. E-5 NO SCALE TYP E-5 FIXTURE TYPE 'A' DETAIL A NO SCALE TYP E-5 MINI POWER CENTER A a A0 • d a � a d 4 4 dQ " 4 4 ,• d 4 d a d d • d � , (MPC) 10 1 /- ��� �1, TO MSC-1 FOR CONNECTION, � 3 3 3 SEE DWG E3 SQ PLAN 4—# 1" X 24" X 3" / \ MPC-1,3 -\**"2"C-2#6, 1 #8GND NTS " 1 CHAMFER GALV. ANCHOR BOLTS GROUND WELL MP) 1 ».1-1.4\MkPC-2 � SEE DETAIL B/E-5 4-#5 ONE AT a � #4/0BC I B EACH CORNER �� a a d a 2'-0" 4 /110 FINISH GRADE � +9, � I I / NOTES , 1 I / 10 PROVIDE 10KVA, 480V, 1 PHASE PRIMARY WITH / 120/240 VOLTS SECONDARY MINI POWER � / CENTER WITH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CB. 3'-6" I SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION PANEL SHALL CONTAIN I 3 'I 12�20A, 1 Pde CB. UTILIZE CKB MPC-1,2,3 AS SHOWN AND DESIGNATE REST AS 'SPARE' 3 ROWS #5 6" O.C. � a a )2 • PROPOSED CONDUIT ,° 3 1 \ 1 3 1 /+48„ ....4 ,,, (nP> 1.... 1'-6" SQ. LIGHT STANDARD FOOTING SECTION A A -lh— N— ;P STORAGE BUILDING POWER AND LIGHTING PLAN NTS QROFESSI pNq MB MARK BALAN &ASSOCIATES � No. E9420 Expires � SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 1 2 3 W D I D ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES I i I i I i Q /� a/`1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 19871 YORBA LINDA BWD., SUITE 105�FCT YORBALINDA,CA92886 3/31 /12 R SOP"\' F of cP��F° •� (714) 970-2000 / / Information confidential: all plans, drawings, specifi— cations, and/or information furnished herewith shall remain the property of the Riverside County y Transportation Commission; shall be held confidential; and shall not be used for any purpose not provided for in agreements with the Riverside County Transportation Commission. DESIGNED BY M B OF E SS Q� oN N ti �e � ‘P K. T O� FyRCTC y m 9N c _ Z c9 r'� 4J No. 60907 ^' Exp. 12/31/10 k(+r C1V1� �P qT�e \Fp�� �F CAS Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE PARKING LA SIERRA LOT M EXPANSION ET R O L I N K STATION SCALE As SHOWN /,� I NGINEERING 1820 Commercenter Circle DRAWN BY J G / / SOB N0. 97009.006 OF SOUTHERN ESO- RCES San Bernardino, California 9 9 0 0995 � (909) 890-1255 Fax (909) 890-0995 CALIFORNIA, INC. / \ / / / ELECTRICAL DETAILS CHECKED BY BKT PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: DWG. N0. E5 / ^ / \ / / N CHARGE / / BRIAN K. THOMAS DATE: REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 60907 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/10 SHEET 14 OF 14 SHEETS /\ / / DATE AUG 2009 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY APP. APPENDIX B - MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FEZ MSHCP Consistency Analysis La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project Environmental On -Call Contract (Agreement No. 13-31-150-01) with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) September 15, 2015 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Prepared by: HDR, Inc. 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Report Date: September 15, 2015 B. Report Title: General Biological Resources and MSHCP Consistency Report C. Project Site The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project is located Location: near the intersection of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street in the City of Riverside. The project area is located in Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 6 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7 5-minute series Riverside West, California quadrangle. D. Project Riverside County Transportation Commission Proponent: 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Contact: Patricia Castillo Phone: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 E. Principal HDR, Inc. Investigator: 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Phone (951) 320-7300 Report Preparers: Sarah Barrera, Aaron Newton F. Report Summary: This report transmits the results of an assessment of biological resources in compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) regarding the La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project located in the City of Riverside in Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The proposed project consists of development of a vacant lot located near the northwest corner of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street (APN 138- 030-024) for use as additional parking for the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station. HDR biologists reviewed relevant background information and then visited the site to assess the Study Area for existing biological resources. HDR then reviewed the proposed project in order to determine potential project impacts to these resources. The proposed project is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area Cell. Therefore, the project is not subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process or the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process. The project is located within the MSHCP's Burrowing Owl Survey Area but is not located within any other special survey areas and does not contain riparian habitat that would require additional surveys. i RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project All surveys required for compliance with the MSHCP have been completed. With coverage afforded by the western Riverside County MSHCP and proposed avoidance of special status species, impacts to biological resources are expected to be less than significant with respect to CEQA. ii RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 Project Characteristics 4 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 6 2.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants or Animals 6 2.1.1 State of California Endangered Species Act 6 2.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act 6 2.1.3 State and Federal Take Authorizations for Listed Species 7 2.1.4 Take Authorizations Pursuant to the MSHCP 7 2.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 8 2.2 California Environmental Quality Act 8 2.2.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 8 3.0 METHODOLOGY 9 3.1 Literature Review 9 3.2 Field Surveys 9 4.0 RESULTS 9 4.1 Existing and Adjacent Land Use 9 4.2 Vegetation, Soils, and Disturbance 10 4.3 Wildlife 10 4.4 Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streambeds 10 5.0 MSHCP COMPLIANCE 10 5.1 Consistency with MSHCP Survey Requirements 15 5.1.1 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Requirements 15 5.1.2 Narrow Endemic and Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area 15 5.1.3 Burrowing Owl 15 5.1.4 Other MSHCP Survey Requirements 16 6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH MSHCP OBJECTIVES FOR RESERVE ASSEMBLY 16 6.1 Area Plan and Criteria Cells 17 6.2 Cores and Linkages 17 6.3 Urban/Wildlands Interface Requirements 17 7.0 CEQA COMPLIANCE 17 7.1 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans 17 7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 18 7.3 Other Special Status Species 18 7.3.1 Raptors and Other Avian Species 18 7.4 Wildlife Movement, Corridors, and Nursery Sites 18 7.5 Special -Status Natural Communities 18 7.6 Wetlands 24 7.7 Local Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources 24 7.8 Indirect Effects 24 7.9 Cumulative Effects 24 i RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 8.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 25 9.0 REFERENCES 25 TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5a Figure 5b Figure 6 Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations 1 MSHCP Project Review Checklist 15 Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Dates, Times, and Weather Conditions 16 Special Interest Species in Vicinity That Are Not Covered Under the MSHCP or Require Additional Conservation Under the MSHCP 19 Regional Location 2 MSHCP Survey Areas 3 Conceptual Site Plan 5 Study Area, Land Use, and Vegetation Cover 11 Representative Site Photographs 12 Representative Site Photographs 13 NRCS Soils Map 14 APPENDICES Appendix A. Complete List of Flora and Fauna Observed Appendix B. MSHCP Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report ii RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California (Figure 1 Regional Location). The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project (Project) would occur on the RCTC-owned adjacent vacant lot, east of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking area. The project site is located along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue at 10901 Indiana Avenue. This report provides the results of an assessment of biological resources in compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). All MSHCP- required surveys have been conducted and the proposed project will comply with the requirements of the MSHCP. 1.1 Project Location The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. Table 1 provides existing City of Riverside General Plan land use designations for the site and adjacent properties. Table 1: Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations Proximity to Site Existing Land Use General Plan Designationl On -site Vacant land Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) North Existing BNSF rail line91) d State Route 91 (SR- Rail/Freeway South Single Family Residential (Riverwalk Vista development) Medium Density Residential (MDR) East AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes Commercial (C) West La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking lot Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) Notes: ` Figure LU-10 Land Use Policy Map, City of Riverside General Plan 2015 The project site is currently a vacant field. Elevation within the project site ranges from 744 to 752 above mean sea level (AMSL). There is an existing mound of soil located on the southern most portion of the site that would be utilized to bring the site's elevation to match the adjacent parking lot's elevation. The entire study area is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. However, the project site is not located within a Criteria Cell or any other MSHCP Survey Areas (see Figure 2). 1 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project !Upland Sunswee Narod Chino °Ma o Srlverado Alta Loma Guas1i Champagne Norco Corona Grapeland Etiwanda Rocheste Pepper Corner 8ioamrngton O '�__Loma OeGezvilf2 _ w Linda Crestmare 4 BERNARDIFYO CaUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY sunr»slope 15 Aft,—' °Nia Ennis - * Extep nt "— Ormand _ Mira Loma Glen �— Avon RilbldOUX Pedley Allanza La Sierra Arlington May Home Gardens Ei Cerrito Riverside Canyon (< Cresr Heights Lemona Salve dere Heights Pachappa Casa prenda Blanca Edgemont Box Springs Arlington StatiOn Location OAGIS Produ c[ion1P rujec[s1RCTC 202159)La5ierra Melaolinir_2597251Map_DocsimadIR a gio na l.m:d-ahurrail-8!7l2015 Woodcrest Arnold Heights Lake Elsinore West March March FIFE] Canyon Lake Regional Location FIGURE 1 2 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 0 0.25 Miles ID Study Area MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area G:1G IS_ProductionWrgeclsLRC TC_20215gla Sierra Medalink_259725W1a p_OocsYnxd WI SHC P mxd-a 6u rvaIF8/14/2015 MSHCP Survey Areas FIGURE 2 3 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 1.2 Project Characteristics The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. As identified in Figure 3 (Conceptual Site Plan), with the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Additional work/features include: • Site grading; • Asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping; • Curb and gutter; • Concrete planter curbs; • Wrought iron fencing; • Landscaping and irrigation; • LED marquee lighting; • Storm drain facilities; • Benches and trash receptacles; • Information kiosk; and, • Restroom facility for use by RTA and site security personnel Construction of the project is anticipated to take approximately 32 weeks. Grading, asphalt and concrete placement will require 18 weeks of construction. The project site would require approximately 29,746 cubic yards of fill, 30,479 cubic yards of cut and 733 cubic yards of export to bring the site elevation to the same level as the adjacent parking lot. Landscaping is proposed along Indiana Avenue frontage and within the parking lot. Concrete curb stops are proposed at the end of each row of parking spaces. Sidewalks would be provided for pedestrians walking to and from the proposed bus bays. A new driveway approach would be constructed at the northeastern most corner of the site and would wrap along the project site's eastern and northern boundary to connect to the proposed bus bays. Buses accessing the site would do so through one of two ingress points along Indiana Avenue and would exit the site via the to be signalized existing La Sierra Station/Indiana Avenue intersection. A wrought iron fence would be installed along the northern most boundary of the site to provide separation between the existing rail tracks and the proposed bus shelter areas; and the southernmost boundary along Indiana Avenue. 4 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project • L. LNi_.._ i1 !- T 1 - r r _= 1' - _ 4— 1 _ - �'" .1.,- n maga w— ROM, P ,F1,7 RCTC �lEME1 _ knxvde Crary Bunrabl.m[amis q RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION SITE PLAN Conceptual Site Plan FIGURE 3 5 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The proposed project is subject to state and federal regulations associated with a number of regulatory programs. These programs often overlap and were developed to protect natural resources, including: state and federally listed plants and animals; aquatic resources including rivers and creeks, ephemeral streambeds, wetlands, and areas of riparian habitat; other special - status species which are not listed as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; and other special -status vegetation communities. 2.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants or Animals 2.1.1 State of California Endangered Species Act California's Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines an endangered species as "a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease." The State defines a threatened species as "a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species." Candidate species are defined as "a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list." Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not list invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating "No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided." Under the CESA, "take" is defined as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Exceptions authorized by the state to allow "take" require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Sections 1901 and 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code provide that notification is required prior to disturbance. 2.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA of 1973 defines an endangered species as "any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A threatened species is defined as "any species 6 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA it is unlawful to "take" any listed species. "Take" is defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: "...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Further, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through regulation, has interpreted the terms "harm" and "harass" to include certain types of habitat modification that result in injury to, or death of species as forms of "take." These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case -by -case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a Federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants. 2.1.3 State and Federal Take Authorizations for Listed Species Federal or state authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual or other private entity would be granted in one of the following ways: • Section 7 of the FESA stipulates that any federal action that may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered requires a formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). • In 1982, the FESA was amended to give private landowners the ability to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA. Upon development of an HCP, the USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species where the HCP specifies at minimum, the following: (1) the level of impact that will result from the taking, (2) steps that will minimize and mitigate the impacts, (3) funding necessary to implement the plan, (4) alternative actions to the taking considered by the applicant and the reasons why such alternatives were not chosen, and (5) such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the plan. Sections 2090-2097 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) require that the state lead agency consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on projects with potential impacts on state -listed species. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally listed as well as state -listed species. In certain circumstances, Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code allows CDFW to adopt the federal incidental take statement or the 10(a) permit as its own based on its findings that the federal permit adequately protects the species under state law. 2.1.4 Take Authorizations Pursuant to the MSHCP The Western Riverside County MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003, and an Implementing Agreement (IA) was executed between the Federal and State Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFW) and participating entities. The MSHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation -planning program for western Riverside County. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. As such, the MSHCP is intended to streamline review of individual projects with respect to 7 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project the species and habitats addressed in the MSHCP, and to provide for an overall Conservation Area that would be of greater benefit to biological resources than would result from a piecemeal regulatory approach. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special -status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species. Through agreements with the USFWS and the CDFW, the MSHCP designates approximately 146 special -status animal and plant species that receive some level of coverage under the plan. Of the 146 covered species designated under the MSHCP, the majority of these species have no additional survey/ conservation requirements. In addition, the MSHCP provides mitigation for project -specific impacts to these species so that the impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Beyond the fully covered species, there are species with additional survey/ conservation requirements. These include fourteen (14) Narrow Endemic Plant Species, as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); thirteen (13) Criteria Area Plant Species identified by the Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA); seven (7) animal species as identified by survey area; six (6) species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP document); and an additional 28 species (Table 9.3 of the MSHCP document) not yet adequately conserved. 2.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1928 makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R.21). In addition, sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. 2.2 California Environmental Quality Act 2.2.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of a project's impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts. Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.2 below set forth these thresholds and guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non -listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW recognizes that plants on Lists 1A, 1B, or 2 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. 8 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Literature Review A literature review was conducted to determine the existence or potential occurrence of special - status plant and animal species on the project site and in the project vicinity. Database records for the Riverside West, California; Guasti, California; Fontana, California; San Bernardino South, California; Corona North, California; and Riverside East, California USGS 7 5-minute series quadrangles were searched on July 31, 2015, using the CDFW Natural Diversity Data Base Rarefind 5 online application (version 5, dated July 4, 2015) and the California Native Plant Society's Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2015. v8-02, http://www.cnps.org/inventory). An aerial photograph (Google Earth 2015) was reviewed and GIS maps of USFWS designated critical habitats (USFWS 1994 and 2010) were used to determine the locations of critical habitats relative to the project site. Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan were also used to prepare the biological resources report. Soil information was taken from Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California (Soil Conservation Service 1971) and electronic data available through the USDA's Web Soil Survey Online Application (MRCS 2015). 3.2 Field Surveys HDR Biologist Aaron Newton conducted a site visit on July 24, 2015 in order to identify general site conditions, vegetation communities, and suitability of habitat for various special -status species. The entire project site was surveyed by foot. Vegetation communities within the site were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1" = 200') aerial photograph. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded following the guidelines adopted by CNPS (2001) and CDFW by Nelson (1984). A complete list of the plant species observed is provided in Appendix A. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Hickman (1993) and Roberts (2004). A Habitat Assessment (HA) for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea) was conducted at the time of the general biological resources survey. Areas of suitable habitat, when present, were mapped onto an aerial photograph. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted in August 2015 for suitable habitat within the survey area. An additional 150-foot buffer zone between the survey area and SR-91 was surveyed with binoculars No other suitable habitat occurs within 150 feet of the survey area. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Existing and Adjacent Land Use The survey area is a vacant lot surrounded by development on all sides and is relatively flat and ranges in elevation from approximately 744-752 feet above mean sea level. Existing land uses adjacent to the site include railroad tracks and SR-91 to the north, a bowling alley to the east, residential development to the south, and an existing parking lot for the La Sierra Metrolink Station to the east. 9 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 4.2 Vegetation, Soils, and Disturbance Based on a review of historic aerial photographs (Historic Aerials, 1948, 1966, 1967, 1980, 1994 and Google Earth (2003-2014) the survey area was cleared of vegetation prior to 1948 for residential/agricultural use. A degraded asphalt road that traverses the site is a remnant of Indiana Avenue prior to its realignment sometime between 1980 and 1994. As a result, the site is highly disturbed and no longer supports native habitat. As shown in Figure 4, two land cover types occur within the survey area: Urban/Developed and Non-native Grassland. Urban/Developed areas are largely unvegetated and occur in the southeast corner of the survey area, associated with the degraded paved road that is no longer used. The remainder of the site consists of non-native grassland. Dominant species in the non-native grassland community include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Representative site photographs are provided in Figure 5. A complete list of plant species observed on the site is included as Appendix A. Soils mapped within the study area, as depicted in Figure 6, include Arlington fine, sandy loam (0 to 2% slopes), Arlington fine, sandy loam (2 to 8% slopes), Delhi fine sand (2 to 25% slopes, wind - eroded), and Ramona sandy loam (8 to 15% slopes, eroded). 4.3 Wildlife Wildlife common to disturbed, open areas was observed using the site. These include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). A complete list of wildlife species observed on the site is included in Appendix A. 4.4 Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streambeds The project site does not support any areas that would be considered jurisdictional under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, no areas that meet the MSHCP's definition of Riparian/Riverine occur within the site. No further studies to determine potential USACE, CDFW, RWQCB jurisdiction within the project site are required. 5.0 MSHCP COMPLIANCE Specific survey requirements and conservation measures have been developed for this project site in accordance with its location within the MSHCP Planning Area. These survey requirements and conservation measures were identified by conducting a search of the online Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator (accessed July 23, 2015, http://www.rctlma.org/online/content/rcip_report_generator.aspx) and a review of general conservation requirements identified in Volume 1 of the MSHCP. Figure 5 shows MSHCP survey areas. Table 2 summarizes the MSHCP Project Review Checklist to determine surveys and conservation measures necessary for MSHCP Compliance. 10 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Study Area Non -Native Grassland (4.7 Acres) Ornamental Vegetation (0.21 Acres) Urban/Developed (0.75 Acres) :IGIS_�w61«1.1,1gec[sIn, I ���tia.aC11a11. I VI _ .,, z.,wioy_�w:��� IMJAV V 1,11�1��„x„-a.,,1 rall-9Il0201, Study Area, Land Use, and Vegetation Cover FIGURE 4 11 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Photo 1: View of survey area from southeast corner, facing northwest with SR-91 in the background. Photo 2: View of survey area from southeast corner, facing north, with SR-91 in the background. Representative Site Photographs FIGURE 5a 12 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Photo 3: View of survey area from northwest corner, facing southeast with bowling alley and residential development in the background. Photo 4: View of survey area from southwest corner, facing east, with bowling alley in the background. Representative Site Photographs FIGURE 5b 13 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project I j Study Area Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes - Arlington fine sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes Delhi fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes, wind -eroded Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded wW.4.11 1geaa v«. I�._c ���.+aa.reunineuuin _ nrc.r unay_uu.n Y. unu n41u1 Vtll iaV CV J NRCS Soils Map FIGURE 6 14 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table 2: MSHCP Project Review Checklist Yes No Is the project located in a Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public Land? ✓ Is the project located in Criteria Area Plant Survey Area? ✓ Is the project located in Criteria Area Amphibian Survey Area? ✓ Is the project located in Criteria Area Mammal Survey Area? ✓ Is the project located adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas? ✓ Is the project located in Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area? ✓ Are riverine/riparian/wetland habitats or vernal pools present? ✓ Is the project located in Burrowing Owl Survey Area? ✓ 5.1 Consistency with MSHCP Survey Requirements 5.1.1 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Requirements Riparian/riverine areas are lands that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, and persistent emergents that occur close to or depend upon soil moisture from a nearby water source; or areas with fresh water flowing during all of a portion of the year. Unvegetated drainages (ephemeral) streams) may be included if alterations to that drainage have the potential to affect Covered Species and Conservation Areas. As discussed in Section 4.4, above, the site does not contain any areas that meet the MSHCP definition of Riparian/Riverine areas. 5.1.2 Narrow Endemic and Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area The project site is not located within any MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) or Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA). 5.1.3 Burrowing Owl The project site is within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. Burrowing owls are typically found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, and desert habitats often associated with burrowing animals. They can also inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon, and ponderosa pine habitats. They nest in abandoned burrows of ground squirrels or other animals, in pipes, under piles of rock or debris, and in other similar features. Sites within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area require a burrowing owl habitat assessment (HA) and, if suitable habitat is determined to be present, focused burrowing owl surveys are required. Burrowing owls generally forage in short grass (2-6 inches in height), mowed and grazed pastures, and ruderal vegetation. Burrowing owls avoid vegetation taller than approximately three feet and avoid foraging in open fields that do not provide adequate cover from potential predators. 15 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project The HA for burrowing owls was conducted at the time of the general biological resources survey. Suitable habitat, as defined in the MSHCP's Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (MSHCP March 2006), was identified throughout the project site. A focused burrowing owl survey was conducted according to the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions in August 2015. The complete results of the focused burrowing owl surveys are included as Appendix B. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted in the non-native grassland habitat. A summary of the dates, times, and weather conditions during the focused burrowing owl surveys are included in Table 3. Table 3: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Dates, Times, and Weather Conditions Survey Date (2015) Time (24-hour) (start/finish) Temp. (°F) (start/finish) Wind (mph) Sky Habitat Suitability Assessment July 24 0900/1200 76/83 1-3 clear Burrow Survey/Burrowing Owl Survey 1 August 13 1845/2030 99/97 0-2 clear Burrowing Owl Survey 2 August 14 1900/2015 100/97 0-2 clear Burrowing Owl Survey 3 August 15 0550/0715 75/74 0-2 clear Burrowing Owl Survey 4 August 16 0600/0715 73/74 0-2 clear Several small mammal burrows were found in the southern half of the survey area, with some near the center of the site of a large enough diameter to support BUOW. The openings of these larger burrows were covered with cobwebs, indicating they were inactive. No burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, scat, tracks, and/or feathers) were observed within the survey area during the 2015 focused surveys. Because the burrowing owl is a highly mobile species, it has a potential to subsequently occupy any suitable burrows within the site. Per the MSHCP 30-day Pre -construction Burrowing Owl Survey Guidelines (revised August 17, 2006), a pre -construction survey is required for the burrowing owl within 30 days prior to start of grading/construction activities to determine if any burrowing owls have subsequently occupied the construction area. 5.1.4 Other MSHCP Survey Requirements The project site is not within any other designated MSHCP survey areas and does not contain suitable habitat to require any additional MSHCP surveys. Therefore, no surveys for other plant or animal species are necessary for MSHCP consistency. 6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH MSHCP OBJECTIVES FOR RESERVE ASSEMBLY The MSHCP consists of Area Plans divided into Subunits and broken down further into Criteria Cells with specific conservation objectives identified for each. Conservation objectives include target conservation acreages, along with a description of the Planning Species, Biological Issues and Considerations, and Criteria for each Subunit and Criteria Cell. 16 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 6.1 Area Plan and Criteria Cells The study area is located within the Riverside and Norco Area Plan but is not located within any Criteria Cells. Conservation objectives identified for MSHCP Area Plan's only need to be considered for projects within the Criteria Area; therefore, the proposed project does not require evaluation with regard to potential impacts to Planning Species or Criteria Cells. 6.2 Cores and Linkages A Linkage is a connection between Core Areas with adequate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to generally provide for "Live -In" habitat and/or provide for genetic flow for identified planning species. A Core is a block of habitat that supports the life history requirements of Covered Species. The proposed project site is not within any areas identified for existing or potential use as Cores or Linkages. 6.3 Urban/Wildlands Interface Requirements Any development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in edge effects that could adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize such edge effects, projects adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area are required to comply with guidelines provided in MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface). The project is not located adjacent to any lands within or proposed for inclusion within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore, the project will not conflict with Urban/Wildlands Interface Requirements. 7.0 CEQA COMPLIANCE 7.1 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans As previously discussed, the project site is within the MSHCP area and will comply with the requirements of the MSHCP. Other adopted HCPs in the area include the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan and Fee Assessment Area. Riverside County Ordinance No. 663 establishes that all applicants for development permits within the boundaries of the Fee Assessment Area who cannot satisfy mitigation requirements through on -site mitigation as determined through the environmental review process shall pay a mitigation fee of $500.00 per gross acre of the parcels proposed for development. The SKR is native to open grasslands and sparse coastal sage scrub. Non-native grassland within the survey area contains marginally suitable habitat for SKR but is not likely to support this species due to its isolation from other areas of potential habitat. However, in order to comply with the requirements of the SKR HCP, the project proponent will pay the required mitigation fee prior to project development per Riverside Municipal Code 16.40.040. 17 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species No federally- or state -threatened or endangered species were identified within the survey area. There is no critical habitat in the vicinity of the study area. The survey area contains Delhi Sands soils that provide potential suitable habitat for Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; DSFF). However, suitable vegetation to support DSFF does not occur within the survey area. Additionally, the MSHCP covers impacts to DSFF habitat for sites that are not within the Conservation Area. 7.3 Other Special Status Species The special status species listed in Table 4 may be expected to occur in the general project vicinity but are not covered under the MSHCP or require additional conservation measures before being considered adequately conserved by the MSHCP. None of the species identified in Table 4 was observed during any of the site surveys. Since the site is highly disturbed, does not support native vegetation communities, and is isolated from other undeveloped areas, the survey area is not expected to support any of these species. 7.3.1 Raptors and Other Avian Species Although no raptors were observed during the site visit, eucalyptus and palm trees provide roosting and nesting habitat for raptors, such as hawks and owls, among other resident and migratory bird species. The proposed project site supports foraging and nesting habitat for raptors and other avian species. In order to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing should be scheduled outside of the nesting season (March 15 to August 15). If vegetation clearing is scheduled during the nesting season, a pre -construction survey should be conducted within 3 days prior to the commencement of these activities to ensure that no birds are nesting within the site. If birds are nesting within the site, a biologist will determine necessary steps (i.e. buffer zone) necessary to ensure nesting birds are not affected by project activities. 7.4 Wildlife Movement, Corridors, and Nursery Sites Wildlife movement includes seasonal migration along corridors, as well as daily movements for foraging and reaching water sources. Migration corridors may include areas of unobstructed movement for deer, riparian corridors providing cover for migrating birds, routes between breeding waters and upland habitat for amphibians, and between roosting and feeding areas for birds. The project site is surrounded completely by development and is not near any potential wildlife corridors. Development of the project site will not result in the loss of any potential wildlife movement areas, wildlife corridors or nursery sites. 7.5 Special -Status Natural Communities Riparian habitats, oak woodlands, wetlands, aquatic sites, and vernal pools are among the natural communities of interest to the CDFW. The study area supports only non-native grassland and disturbed/developed areas, neither of which are considered sensitive or of special concern to the CDFW or USFWS. 18 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table 4: Special Status Species in Vicinity That Are Not Covered Under the MSHCP or Require Additional Conservation Under the MSHCP Species Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Probability Plants Abronia villosa var. aurita Chaparral sand -verbena Federal: - State: 1B MSHCP: C* Chaparral and coastal sage scrub with sandy soils. Occurs below 1,600 meters (5,300 feet) elevation. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa lily Federal: - State: 4 MSHCP: C* Vallcy and foothill grassland, coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest in sandy or rocky areas. Known between 100 and 1,700 meters (300 to 5,600 feet) elevation. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Intermediate mariposa lily Federal: - State: 1B MSHCP: C* Dry, open rocky slopes and rock outcrops in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland. Known from 105 to 855 meters (340 to 2,800 feet) elevation. Known from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower Federal: - State: 1B MSHCP: C* Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, or woodlands in areas with sandy or rocky soils. Known from 40 to 1,705 meters (100 to 5,600 feet) elevation. Known only from Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson's pepper -grass Federal: -State: 4- MSHCP: NC Found in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Known to occur below 885 meters (2,900 feet) elevation. In California, known only from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties, and Santa Cruz Island. Also occurs in Mexico. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area 19 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table 4: Special Status Species in Vicinity That Are Not Covered Under the MSHCP or Require Additional Conservation Under the MSHCP Species Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Probability to support this species. Nolina cismontana Chaparral nolina Federal: - State: 1B MSHCP: NC Chaparral and coastal sage scrub in rocky soils (sandstone or gabbro). Known to occur between 140 to 1,275 meters (500 to 4,200 feet) elevation. Known from Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, California. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Phacelia keckii Santiago Peak phacelia Federal: - State: 1B MSHCP: NC Closed -cone coniferous forest and chaparral. Known to occur from 545 to 1,600 meters (1,800 to 5,200 feet). Known from Orange and Riverside Counties. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Federal: - State: 1B MSHCP: NC Found in vernally wet sites in many plant communities. Known to occur below Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. 2,040 meters (6,700 feet) elevation. In California, known from Ventura, Kern, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. May also occur in San Luis Obispo County. Fish i Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace Federal: - State: - MSHCP: NC Habitat includes riffles in small streams and shore areas with abundant gravel and rock. Found in the headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel River drainages. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Reptiles Charina trivirgata Federal: - State: SA Habitat includes rocky areas in riparian, chaparral or scrub habitats or adjacent Not 20 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table 4: Special Status Species in Vicinity That Are Not Covered Under the MSHCP or Require Additional Conservation Under the MSHCP Species Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Probability Rosy boa MSHCP: NC oak woodland. Known from Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, south through western Riverside County, and San Diego County into Baja California. Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Lampropeltis zonata (parvirubra) California mountain kingsnake (San Bernardino population) Federal: - State: CSC MSHCP: C* Occurs in bigcone spruce and chaparral at lower elevations, and in black oak, incense cedar, Jeffrey pine, and ponderosa pine communities at higher elevations. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Habitat features include well -illuminated canyons with rocky outcrops or rock talus. Known only from the San Bernardino, San Gabriel, and San Jacinto Mountains. Mammals Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat Federal: - State: CSC MSHCP: NC Valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats. Roosts in dead fronds of palms and sometimes cottonwoods. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis Federal: - State: SA MSHCP: NC Closely associated with source of slow -moving water. Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands. Common and widespread in California. Uncommon in the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions, except for mountains. Ranging generally from sea level to 8,000 feet. Roosts in buildings, mines, caves or crevices; occasionally in swallow nests and under bridges. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support this species. Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free -tailed bat Federal: - State: CSC MSHCP: NC Roosts in caves, rock crevices and sometimes man-made structures. Occurs from the southwestern United States to central Mexico. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in survey area to support 21 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table 4: Special Status Species in Vicinity That Are Not Covered Under the MSHCP or Require Additional Conservation Under the MSHCP Species Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Probability this species. Onychomys torridus ramona Southern grasshopper mouse Federal: - State: CSC MSHCP: NC Believed to inhabit sandy or gravelly valley floor habitats with friable soils in open and semi -open scrub, including coastal sage scrub, mixed chaparral, low sagebrush, riparian scrub, and annual grassland with scattered shrubs, preferring low to moderate shrub cover. More susceptible to small- and large-scale habitat loss and fragmentation than most other rodents, due to its low fecundity, low population density, and large home range size. Arid portions of southwestern California and northwestern Baja California. Not Expected. Low -quality suitable habitat in survey area to support this species but not expected due to survey area's isolation from other areas of suitable habitat. Taxidea taxus American badger Federal: - State: CSC MSHCP: NC Primary habitat requirements seem to be sufficient food and friable soils in relatively open uncultivated ground in grasslands, woodlands, and desert. Widely distributed in North America. Not Expected. No suitable habitat in study area. 22 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Legend Federal: Federal Classifications N/A Not Applicable State: State of California Classifications CSC Animal native to CA that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: • is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; • is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions it for State threatened or endangered status; • has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, threatened or endangered status. . SA 1B 2 3 4 or endangered but has not formally been listed; (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify could lead to declines that would qualify it for State Special Animal. Refers to any other animal monitored by the Natural Diversity Data Base, regardless of its legal or protection status. California Rare Plant Rank 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. California Rare Plant Rank 2: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. California Rare Plant Rank 3: Lack information necessary to assign to 1B or 2 or reject from these ranks. California Rare Plant Rank 4: Limited distribution in CA and populations should be monitored. California Rare Plant Ranks are assigned by a committee of government agency and non -governmental botanical experts and are not official State designations of rarity status. MSHCP: Western Riverside County MSHCP Status C* NC Species is covered under MSHCP but requires additional conservation measures per Table 9-3 of MSHCP before considered adequately conserved Species is not covered under the MSHCP, usually because this species has a low probability of occurring within the MSHCP Planning Area 23 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 7.6 Wetlands There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed project activity limits. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any impacts to potentially jurisdictional wetlands. 7.7 Local Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources County General Plans and development ordinances may include regulations or policies governing biological resources. For example, policies may include tree preservation, locally designated species survey areas, local species of interest, and significant ecological areas. There are no local ordinances applicable to biological resources on site except for code provisions related to the MSHCP mitigation fee and land credits. The project will not be in conflict with any local policies or ordinances applicable to existing biological resources on site. 7.8 Indirect Effects Indirect effects on surrounding areas as a result of the project may include, but are not limited to, increased dust, noise, lighting, traffic, and storm water runoff. The study area is completely surrounded by developed areas that do not support any special status biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have any indirect effects on biological resources in the surrounding area. 7.9 Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts potentially include habitat fragmentation, increased edge effects, reduced habitat quality, and increased mortality of some common wildlife species. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special -status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to special -status species and associated native habitats. The MSHCP will result in an MSHCP Conservation Area in excess of 500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 species. Section 5.1.1 of the MSHCP Final EIR/EIS states that "implementation of the MSHCP and Covered Projects will not result in a cumulative adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any of the Covered Species, including the 31 species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered and the one species that is currently proposed for listing. Implementation of the MSHCP will benefit the Covered Species by preserving their habitat in order to address their life cycle needs. Thus, based on the features of the Plan itself, impacts to Covered Species are mitigated below a level of significance." Since the proposed project will be in compliance with the MSHCP, cumulative impacts to covered species and habitat will be mitigated through participation in the MSHCP. 24 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 8.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES In order to ensure that the project is in compliance with the MSHCP and project effects on biological resources are less than significant with respect to CEQA, the following avoidance and minimization measures should be implemented: BIO-1. A pre -construction survey for BUOW should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30-days prior to vegetation clearing/grading. If BUOW are found on -site during the pre - construction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of active BUOW nests and MSHCP conservation requirements with regards to BUOW are met. BI0-2. A pre -construction survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to vegetation clearing/grading, if vegetation clearing/grading occurs during the nesting season (March 15 — August 15). If nesting birds protected under the MBTA are found onsite during the pre -construction survey, the biologist will determine appropriate measures necessary to ensure that there is no take of protected active nests. 9.0 REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, Seventh Edition. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. CDFW. 2015 (July). Special Animals. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2015. RareFind 5 [Internet]. Records of occurrence for U.S.G.S. 7.5- minute Quadrangle maps: Riverside West, California; Guasti, California; Fontana, California; San Bernardino South, California; Corona North, California; and Riverside East, California. CDFW [July 7, 2015]. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. (Sixth Edition). Rare Plant Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor, County of Riverside. 2003. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. County of Riverside. 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 25 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union. Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 1,400 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp. Roberts, F.M., S.D. White, A.C. Sanders, D.E. Bramlet, and S. Boyd. 2004. The Vascular Plants of Western Riverside County, California. Robertson, J. M. 1929. Some observations on the feeding habits of the burrowing owl. Condor 31: 38-39. Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler -Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside County, California. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 26 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project APPENDIX A COMPLETE LIST OF FLORA AND FAUNA OBSERVED DURING SITE SURVEYS RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project APPENDIX A. COMPLETE LIST OF FLORA AND FAUNA OBSERVED Scientific Name Common Name FLORA MAGNOLIAPHYTA: MAGNOLIOPSIDA DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family *Amaranthus albus tumbling pigweed Asteraceae Sunflower Family Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed *Erigeron bonariensis flax -leaved horseweed Helianthus annuus Western sunflower Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed *Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Brassicaceae Mustard Family *Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard *Sisymbrium sp. mustard species Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family *Salsola tragus Russian thistle Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family *Ricinus communis castor -bean Myrtaceae Myrtle Family *Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum Nyctaginaceae Four -O'clock Family Bougainvillea sp. bougainvillea Solanaceae Nightshade Family Datura wrightii jimsonweed Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family Tribulus terrestris puncture vine MAGNOLIOPHYTA: LILIOPSIDA MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Arecaceae Palm Family *Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm Poaceae Grass Family *Bromus sp. brome sp. *Eragrostis mexicana Mexican lovegrass *Hordeum sp. barley sp. *Schismus barbatus Mediterranean schismus Setaria viridis green bristlegrass FAUNA AVES BIRDS A-1 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Scientific Name Common Name Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird Corvidae Crows and Ravens Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Sturnidae Starlings *Sturnus vulgaris European starling Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch REPTILIA REPTILES Phrynosomatidae Phrynosomatid Lizards Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard * Denotes non-native species A-2 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project APPENDIX B MSHCP BURROWING OWL FOCUSED SURVEY REPORT FN hdrinc.com October 2, 2015 Mr. Steven Keel Bechtel Infrastructure Riverside Transportation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 210 Riverside, CA 92507 Dear Mr. Keel, This letter report discusses the results of focused burrowing owl burrowing owl [(Athene cunicularia hypugea); BUOW] surveys conducted for the proposed La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project in compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).The proposed project is located in the City of Riverside in Riverside County, California near the northwest corner of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street (APN 138-030-024) for use as additional parking for the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station (see attached Figure 1). A general biological resources survey was conducted for the project site on July 24, 2015. The site is within the MSHCP's Burrowing Owl Survey Area, for which focused BUOW surveys must be conducted if suitable habitat is present. Based on the results of this survey, it was determined that focused BUOW surveys were needed in order to determine the presence or absence of this species within, and adjacent to, the project site. Focused surveys were conducted in August 2015. No BUOWs or BUOW sign (occupied burrows, pellets, scat, feathers, etc.) were found within the project site. Per the MSHCP requirements, a 30-day pre -construction survey for BUOW will be required to ensure that BUOW have not colonized the site prior to development. Background BUOWs are typically found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, and desert habitats often associated with burrowing animals. They can also inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon, and ponderosa pine habitats. They nest in abandoned burrows of ground squirrels or other animals, in pipes, under piles of rock or debris, and in other similar features. BUOWs generally forage in short grass (2-6 inches in height), mowed and grazed pastures, and ruderal vegetation. BUOWs avoid vegetation taller than approximately three feet and avoid foraging in open fields that do not provide adequate cover from potential predators. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92123 T 858.712.8400 F 858.712.8333 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Burrowing Owl Survey Project Location and Environmental Setting The Project is located near the northwest corner of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street, south of SR-91. The Project is located in Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 6 West of United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series Riverside West, California topographic quadrangle map. The project site is located within the Riverside County General Plan's Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan. The entire study area is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. The site is not located within a Criteria Cell or any other MSHCP Survey Areas. Existing Habitat Conditions The project site is a vacant lot surrounded by development on all sides. The site is highly disturbed and no longer supports native habitat. Soils mapped within the study area, as depicted in Figure 6, include Arlington fine, sandy loam (0 to 2% slopes), Arlington fine, sandy loam (2 to 8% slopes), Delhi fine sand (2 to 25% slopes, wind -eroded), and Ramona sandy loam (8 to 15% slopes, eroded). As shown in attached Figure 2, three land cover types occur within the project site: Urban/Developed, Ornamental Vegetation and Non-native Grassland. Urban/Developed areas are largely unvegetated and occur in the southeast corner of the project site, associated with the degraded paved road that is no longer used. Ornamental Vegetation occurs as a row of planted shrubs and trees at the eastern edge of the existing La Sierra Metrolink parking lot. The remainder of the site consists of non-native grassland. Dominant species in the non-native grassland community include Russian thistle (Salso/a tragus), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Wildlife common to disturbed, open areas was observed using the site. These include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Methods Focused BUOW surveys were conducted in accordance with the MSHCP's Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (MSHCP March 2006). Surveys were conducted during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). HDR Biologist Aaron Newton conducted a Habitat Assessment (HA) for BUOW on July 24, 2015. Vegetation communities were mapped onto an aerial photograph. Non-native grassland within the project site was determined to provide potentially suitable habitat for BUOW. HDR biologist Sarah Barrera conducted focused BUOW in August 2015 for suitable habitat within the project site. An additional 150-foot buffer zone between the project site and SR-91 was surveyed with binoculars. No other suitable habitat was identified within 150 feet of the site. Focused surveys were conducted for the entire site, focusing on the non-native grassland habitat. Dates, times, and weather conditions of surveys are included in Table 1. October 2, 2015 Page 2 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Burrowing Owl Survey Table 1: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Dates, Times, and Weather Conditions Survey Date (2015) Time (24-hour) (start/finish) Temp. (°F) (start/finish) Wind (mph) Sky Habitat Suitability Assessment ,July 24 0900/1200 76/83 1-3 clear Burrow Survey/ Burrowing Owl Survey 1 August 13 1845/2030 99/97 0-2 clear Burrowing Owl Survey 2 August 14 1900/2015 100/97 0-2 clear Burrowing Owl Survey 3 August 15 0550/0715 75/74 0-2 clear Burrowing Owl Survey 4 August 16 0600/0715 73/74 0-2 clear Results Suitable habitat for BUOW occurs throughout most of the project site, with the exception of within the ornamental vegetation associated with the existing La Sierra Metrolink parking lot and a degraded asphalt road in the southern half of the site. Habitat consists of low - growing non-native herbaceous plants. Since the site is surrounded by development on all sides, it is isolated from other undeveloped areas, and is not connected to any other potentially suitable BUOW habitat. No BUOWs or BUOW sign was identified in the project site or buffer zone during the 2015 focused surveys. Several small mammal burrows were found in the southern half of the site, with some near the center of the site of a large enough diameter to potentially support BUOW. The openings of these larger burrows were covered with cobwebs, indicating they were inactive. Representative site photographs are included as an attachment. Conclusion and Recommendations Burrowing owls were not observed in the project area during the focused surveys for this species conducted in 2015. Because the BUOW is a mobile species, there is potential for BUOW to subsequently occupy any suitable burrows within the site. Per the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, a pre -construction survey is required for the burrowing owl within 30 days prior to start of grading/construction activities to determine if any burrowing owls have subsequently occupied the construction area. Sincerely, Sarah Barrera Senior Biologist October 2, 2015 Page 3 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Burrowing Owl Survey Sunsweer { ro Narod Chirro Arta r€d coma Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga Eiverado Norco Etrwanda Rochester Pepper Corner aloonrngton Ceclezvnle Cres tmore BERNARDINO COUNTY Mira Loma Glen Avon Rubidoux Pedley A rlanza Riverside t Pachappa La Sierra Ar7mgton. Casa Prenda Branca Arlington Stahon May Nome Gardens Er Cernto Ao it , C. kPoodorest Edgemont Arnold Neignts Lake Elsinore {vest March March AF8 Canyon Lake Study Area, Land Use, and Vegetation Cover Figure 1 October 2, 2015 Page 4 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Burrowing Owl Survey r_ imlL]rrrarielOPTt^ 11,1S011 200 d F:41:+ . a.r.n 14.1.w, '1c071c1a2 rr,.<+..,,,rm•rt-sni��,.on.onnnn.s j Study Area Non -Native Grassland (4.7 Acres) Ornamental Vegetation (0.21 Acres) '1`.' Lite nineyeloped (0.75Acres) Land Use and Vegetation Cover Figure 2 October 2, 2015 Page 5 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Burrowing Owl Survey Photo 1:View of site from southeast corner, facing northwest, showing low herbaceous vegetation that provides suitable habitat for BUOW. Photo 2: View of suitable burrowing owl habitat in southern portion of the site, showing small mammal burrows in the foreground and a potential perch/stake. Site Photographs (page 1 of 2) October 2, 2015 Page 6 RCTC I La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Burrowing Owl Survey Photo ':i s �, ."� ""�.,' ., „.t »., .;� 7-.' it , 4 ,, , ': yf ,71.1..- 4� y T •�: Y$4 4, , , �—c v � .� a , � ,W . sk r - +, • - - .,.r, - ,a` v 6 p'.i-•J' µ... `emu - if "1r( - �.. 'L 1 i �'� ` y µ 1j L • r' r. '•.'"_ ?i+11. ..� 4 �f; *M1�" '.G } �- "fir �4 �k4 �x h (��, li 3 a r? t �,y, ": rr������ f �' 1 A 4} �/ 9 3 ,Fi !�4 .` �� .f J�u Y .t�iyr. 3: r y f�. '...' * ,' V k t ` �, LY 9 y,�s yyx ✓ _. i .. ,r, % t r s f r s f i 'wit-- i�*g%����'�^X ` �vP f�f �,�7y;+�'�b�. 1 r�+" � a d '�'��a° • '� Y,� ��� •�a#. ir Y j' Yiq c y' lc �r*lyy1a ,_ \*2 c' Fyn. '�°„( i;ck �.{ 17 ,h {� v ;. . e,4. ^ • r .4 l vt;f 1 ti .� +1 .. i' Yv l t fti �., i X. •e4. "� a . and 3: View of largest burrows on the site, located near the center of the site. These, most burrows on the site, were covered with cobwebs. Site Photographs (page 2of 2) October 2, 2015 Page 7 APPENDIX C - CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Cultural Resources Technical Report: Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project Environmental On -Call Contract (Agreement No. 13-31-150-01) with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) August 2015 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Prepared by: Margaret Diss, MA Archaeologist Amy Gusick, PhD, RPA Archaeology Program Manager HDR, Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT METROLINK LA SIERRA PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2-1 2.2 PERSONNEL 2-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.2 PROJECT AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 3-1 4. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 4-5 4.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 4-5 4.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 4-5 4.1.2 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 4-6 4.2 STATE REGULATIONS 4-6 4.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS 4-7 4.3.1 City of Riverside Cultural Resources Ordinances 4-7 5. BACKGROUND 5-1 5.1 ENVIRONMENT 5-1 5.2 PALEOENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 5-1 5.3 CULTURAL SETTING 5-3 5.3.1 Gabrielino 5-3 PRE -CONTACT PERIOD- Gabrieleno 5-3 POST -CONTACT PERIOD- Gabrieleno 5-5 5.3.2 Cahuilla 5-8 5.3.3 Juaneno 5-9 5.4 HISTORY 5-10 6. METHODS 6-1 6.1 PRE -FIELD RESEARCH 6-1 6.1.1 Previously Recorded Resources 6-1 6.2 INITIAL NATIVE AMERICAN COORDINATION 6-3 6.3 FIELD METHODS 6-3 7. RESULTS AND EVALUATION 7-1 7.1 ABANDONED SECTION OF INDIANA AVENUE. 7-1 7.2 BUILDING MATERIALS 7-7 8. FINDING OF EFFECT/IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8-1 8.1 FINDING OF EFFECTS 8-1 8.1.1 Effects 8-1 8.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8-1 8.2.1 Impacts 8-2 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 i Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 9-1 9.1 INADVERTENT DISCOVERIES 9-1 9.2 HUMAN REMAINS 9-1 10. REFERENCES 10-1 A: Resumes of Key Personnel B: Consultation Results C: DPR Form APPENDICES FIGURES 3-1. Regional Location 3-2 3-2. Project APE. 3-3 5-1. Map of Gabrieleno Territory with known settlement locations in darkened area. 5-7 5-2. Map of Cahuilla Territory with tribal territory in darkened area and villages numbered 5-9 5-3. Map of Juana° Territory with known settlement locations in darkened area. 5-10 6-1. Previously recorded resources within one-half mile of project APE 6-2 7-1. Historic Aerial taken in 1980 showing Indiana Avenue in position of abandoned road. 7-3 7-2. Historic Aerial taken in 1994 with abandoned road and new alignment of Indiana Avenue. 7-4 7-3. Historic Aerial taken in 1948 showing the house in the northeast corner of the APE 7-5 7-4. Aerial showing location of the road (purple) within the APE (red). 7-6 PHOTOGRAPHS 6-1. Overview of APE northwest corner facing east 6-4 6-3. Northeast corner of the dirt lot/ APE. Facing west 6-4 6-3. Northeast corner of the dirt lot/ APE. Facing west 6-5 6-4. Abandoned road. Southeast corner facing north 6-5 6-5. Hill in the middle of the APE extending east -west. View facing east. 6-6 7-1. Section of abandoned, realigned Indiana Avenue. View from terminus of paved portion near middle of APE, facing east 7-2 7-2. Building materials. View facing east 7-7 TABLES 6-1. Previously Recorded Resources within One -Half Mile of Project APE 6-1 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 ii Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AMSL Above Mean Sea Level APE Area of Potential Effect APN Assessors Parcel Number BP Before Present CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CFR Code of Federal Regulations DPR Department of Parks and Recreation EIC Eastern Information Center EPA Environmental Protection Agency ft feet gpm gallons per minute GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System m meter(s) NAM Native American Monitor NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places RPA Register of Professional Archaeologists PRC Public Resources Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office SRF State Revolving Fund Loan TCP Traditional Cultural Property USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 iii Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 1. MANAGENENT SUMVIARY The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project (Project) would occur on the RCTC-owned adjacent vacant lot, east of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking area. The project will be funded with local and/or federal funds. The proposed project area of potential effect (APE) for the Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project covers approximately 4.9 acres in an open, mostly dirt lot bounded to the north by the existing BNSF owned train tracks (used by Metrolink and BNSF) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by the AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. With the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building. Additional work/features include site grading, asphalt concrete (AC) and portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping, curb and gutter, concrete planter curbs, wrought iron fencing, landscaping and irrigation, LED marquee lighting, storm drain facilities, benches and trash receptacles, an information kiosk, and a restroom facility for use by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and site security personnel. The scope of the current cultural technical study includes (1) reviewing available archaeological, Native American, and historic literature covering the project site, (2) conducting a pedestrian survey of the area, (3) providing a cultural resources technical report documenting the results of the inventory, and (4) providing a finding of effect and management recommendations. HDR archaeologist Margaret Diss travelled to the Eastern Information Center on July 21, 2015, for a records search of all archaeological and historical resources within one-half mile of the project APE. The records search returned no historic or archaeological resources within the project APE, and seven resources within one-half mile of the APE. On August 7, 2015 a letter was submitted to the Riverside Historical Society to request information and solicit any concerns regarding the project. A review of a historic aerial photograph database was completed and historic aerials of the project area were inspected. HDR contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a search of their Sacred Lands File on August 3, 2015, and a received a response August 25, 2015 and August 31, 2015. The response includes a contact list of Native American individuals or organizations that may have additional information regarding sacred resources in the area. Each of these individuals or groups was sent a letter on September 2, 2015, and followed up with a phone call on September 22, 2015. The letters and their responses are attached to the confidential version of this report only. HDR archaeologist Margaret Diss conducted the cultural resource survey for the La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project on July 24, 2015. One additional resource was identified and recorded as HDR-001. This resource is an abandoned section of road that pre -dates 1948. This site was evaluated and found ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A California DPR form was completed for this resource and sent to the EIC in December of 2015. The DPR form is attached to the confidential version of this report only. Two pre-recorded archaeological sites and five historic sites are located outside of the APE (the closest is about 1000 feet south of the APE) and will not be impacted by the project. The parcel contains various pieces of refuse, including various examples of building materials. The building material are not of historic significance and do not require recordation. A determination of No Adverse Effect/Less than Significant Impact is appropriate and recommended for this project. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 1-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion There are no prehistoric archaeological resources within the APE, and just one historical resource deemed not significant according to NEPA and CEQA standards. Additionally, the possibility of encountering cultural material within the APE is determined to be low —therefore, no monitoring is recommended for this project. HDR does recommend that prior to any ground -disturbing activities workers are trained on the response to unanticipated discoveries and identification of human remains In the event of a discovery, work will be stopped within the immediate area of the find until a professional archaeologist can determine the nature of the resources discovered. If any previously unrecorded human remains are inadvertently discovered during operation or maintenance activities, California State law (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99) will be followed on state, county, and private land. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 1-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Project Overview La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project is located in the vacant lot north of the La Sierra Metrolink station at 10901 Indiana Avenue in Riverside, California. The project's area of potential effect (APE) covers approximately 4.9 acres in the open lot, bounded to the north by the existing BNSF owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and SR-91, to the east by the AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. The project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building. Additional work/features include site grading, AC and PCC pavement and pavement striping, curb and gutter, concrete planter curbs, wrought iron fencing, landscaping and irrigation, LED marquee lighting, storm drain facilities, benches and trash receptacles, an information kiosk, and a restroom facility for use by RTA and site security personnel. The project will be funded with a Federal Transit Authority (FTA) 5309(a) Grant. The proposed project APE covers approximately 4.9 acres in the open lot. 2.2 Personnel Professional services were performed by individuals that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (Federal Register Notice, Vol. 48, No. 190, pp. 44738-44739, 1983). All cultural resource management work performed in association with this project was under the direct supervision of a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA). The Principal Investigator was Dr. Amy Gusick. Dr. Gusick meets the Secretary of Interior's qualifications for archaeologists. HDR archaeologist Margaret Diss provided the field labor, historical research, and report preparation. Ms. Diss possesses a Masters of Arts degree and at least three years of experience in archaeological field work within California. Resumes for key personnel can be found in Appendix A. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 2-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 2-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Chapter 3 provides a description of the Metrolink Project. This chapter also defines the APE for the project and defines the project components. 3.1 Project Location and Description The Metrolink Project is located in southern California in the city of Riverside, situated in the city's southwest quadrant near the southwestern extent of its incorporated area (Figure 3.1). The City of Riverside is located in the northwestern quadrant of Riverside County. The project APE lies just two miles east of the City of Corona. Also adjacent to the City of Riverside and three miles northwest of the APE is the City of Norco. One mile south of the project APE, City of Riverside land gives way to unincorporated Riverside County area above and around Lake Matthews. The project APE is adjacent to two small communities within the City of Riverside: La Sierra to the north and Arlington to the northeast. The neighborhood of Home Gardens lies two miles to the southwest, and Lake Matthews is located 3.5 miles south. The northern border of the APE is flanked by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (used by Metrolink among others), and the CA-91 "Riverside Freeway," is situated on the northern side of the tracks, just 250 feet to the north of the APE. This project has been undertaken because Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) seeks to implement improvements on a vacant lot located adjacent to the La Sierra Metrolink Station at 10901 Indiana Avenue. in Riverside. Proposed improvements include the construction of a parking lot expansion to provide 513 additional parking spaces and 6 new bus bays, a new driveway off Indiana Avenue, curb and gutter improvements, landscaping and irrigation (including concrete planter curbs and wrought iron fencing), and a small wood -frame storage building an information kiosk and a restroom facility 3.2 Project Area of Potential Effect Per 36 CFR Part 800, an APE includes consideration of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project. The APE for the project encompasses 4.9 acres (Figure 3.2). The project APE lies within the USGS Riverside West 7.5 minute topographic map in Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 6 West. Access to the APE can currently be gained through a locked chain link fence that opens onto Indiana Avenue, on the south side of the APE. Indiana Avenue has sufficient width and length for access to the APE; however, a new driveway connecting to Indiana Avenue is planned and may require striping or other constructions activities on Indiana Avenue. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 3-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion vge4` lk�trd Loma w yr � � G a � g c Limonite Ave Goose Creek Golf Club -River Trails • • Park Crestlavn Memorial Park Hil!side Ave California Ave r ✓ _ Mddarr Valley Widll}e Arm ' 0'40' is Ise. f• ' Y Py�n �z Twin Butibs a IZ� et Ave c G m G'ou Course S. 'T thrupd o. ValIPV L Q CypleBS Ave ., h r Laid❑;` Rubidoux / Y Santa AnaRrvm_ -'Idlire Area P. lu ldl:e Riverside Munrapal Almon e Nabob Purport Rancho Park Martha '_JimoTia McLeaniAnia e, McLeary Aria Narresys Q' Narrows • Atli gto A • Ray. Mount Rubieloue Perk Album' AubslOux Riv ..P,y Ve o+� O omm Colh t a' e G� perm an •P. v1. •fy rindian Nigh %'s n rlia,ry sm ''' Hre ✓ i Or Club ,n ' R�! p a i r ' r i�iUatSeertty sP'u o+9+,e ;1C,\4-, Tyler +gT °b Pla ; _.a ".3r &G o r �ooaPe 9 4 V+ •'''' - Q'e +fit a���r, ... e' G� v ��a v's° �e c, � - v 'sr, d -r 13 n: 7 y - r !• Ap Ja' r 3 a' Home Gardens k',e riF �� R �f EagLe Varrey o * Y - ! + f• t tY �t , Project Location 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 0 1 2 4 Kilometers r Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane California VI FIPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Source of background: ©ESRI G 3 i El Sobranle Rd El Sobrenle Rd • Hermosa Or Van HMV', t.:�• San Luis Obispo' •-• .-• rvrrr Los` Angeles San Dieao Palm Springs Figure 3-1. Regional Location. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 3-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Meters 50 100 200 1:5,000 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane California VI FIPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Source of aerial: © ESRI Figure 3-2. Project APE. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 3-3 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 3-4 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 4. REGULATORY FRAIVEWORK This study was prepared to comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as they apply to cultural resources. Per both guidelines, it is necessary for the lead agency to determine if a proposed project has the potential to cause significant impacts on "historical resources." The resources within the project APE were also considered under the applicable local historic preservation guidelines. 4.1 Federal Regulations NEPA requires that any federal undertaking evaluate its environmental effects before proceeding. The three levels of analysis that must be carried out under NEPA include (1) categorical exclusion determination, (2) preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI), and (3) preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). These three levels are explained by the EPA below: • Categorical Exclusion: At the first level, an undertaking may be categorically excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria which a federal agency has previously determined as having no significant environmental impact. A number of agencies have developed lists of actions which are normally categorically excluded from environmental evaluation under their NEPA regulations. • EA/FONSI: At the second level of analysis, a federal agency prepares a written (EA) to determine whether or not a federal undertaking would significantly affect the environment. If the answer is no, the agency issues a (FONSI). The FONSI may address measures which an agency will take to mitigate potentially significant impacts. • EIS: If the EA determines that the environmental consequences of a proposed federal undertaking may be significant, an EIS is prepared. An EIS is a more detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The public, other federal agencies and outside parties may provide input into the preparation of an EIS and then comment on the draft EIS when it is completed. If a federal agency anticipates that an undertaking may significantly impact the environment, or if a project is environmentally controversial, a federal agency may choose to prepare an EIS without having to first prepare an EA. After a final EIS is prepared and at the time of its decision, a federal agency will prepare a public record of its decision addressing how the findings of the EIS, including consideration of alternatives, were incorporated into the agency's decision -making process (EPA 2012). 4.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment (ACHP 2013). The historic preservation review process is outlined in Section 106 of the NHPA. In order to initiate the Section 106 process, the responsible Federal agency first determines whether the undertaking is a type of activity that could affect historic properties. If the agency's undertaking could affect historic properties, the agency determines the scope of appropriate identification efforts and then proceeds to identify historic properties in the area of potential effects (ACHP 2013). If it is determined that there are any possible affects on a historic property, the agency, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), makes an assessment of adverse effects on the identified historic properties based on criteria found in ACHP's regulations (ACHP 2013). If it is determined there La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 4-5 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion are adverse affects, the agency consults with the SHPO/THPO and others to resolve adverse effects, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining measures the agency will take to minimize adverse affects is executed. 4.1.2 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) National Register of Historic Places eligibility determinations require an assessment of historic resources in relation to relevant historic contexts through criteria set forth in Section 106 of the NHPA, which is found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60. The ACHP's implementing regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties," are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The NRHP criteria (36 CFR 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the NHPA. Those criteria state that eligible resources comprise "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association," and any of the following criteria: A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (King, 2008). In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, a cultural resource must also possess most or all of seven aspects of integrity to qualify for NRHP listing. The aspects of integrity are (1) location, (2) design, (3) setting, (4) materials, (5) workmanship, (6) feeling, and (7) association. Historical integrity is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical attributes and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property (King, 2008). 4.2 State Regulations Under CEQA, a proposed project is considered to have a significant effect on the environment if it can be expected to "cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b]). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5[a][3]). Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5024.1(c)(1-4) states that a resource is considered historically significant if it retains "substantial integrity" and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of installation, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic value; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 4-6 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Determining integrity of a resource lies in the authenticity of that resource's physical identity. This is judged by the survival of characteristics that were present during the resource's period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A "substantial adverse change" in a historic resource is a change that includes "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15382). 4,3 Local Regulations While the City of Riverside is located within and is an integral part of the greater Riverside County, the County of Riverside cultural resource statutes only apply to development projects within the unincorporated County of Riverside. The APE of this project is within the bounds of the incorporated City of Riverside, therefore only the citywide ordinances apply in this case. 4.3.1 City of Riverside Cultural Resources Ordinances The management of the City of Riverside's cultural resources has been codified Under Title 20 of the city's municipal code. The following is an excerpt from Title 20, the "Criteria for the Designation of City Landmarks, Historic Districts, Structures of Merit and Neighborhood Conservation Areas" (City of Riverside Planning Department 2015): 20.20.10 LANDMARK DESIGNATION CRITERIA. A cultural resource may be designated by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Board as a landmark pursuant to this title if it: (a) exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; or (b) is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or (c) embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect; or (e) contributes to the significance of an historic area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development; or (f) has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the city; or (g) embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; or La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 4-7 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion (h) is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; or (i) reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; or (j) is one of the few remaining examples in the city, region, state or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen. 20.25.10 HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION CRITERIA. A historic district is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration, linkage, or continuity, constituting more than fifty percent of the total, of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development which has been designated an historic district by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Board pursuant to the provisions of this title. A geographic area may be designated as a historic district by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Board if it: (a) exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; or (b) is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or (c) embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or (d) represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects; or (e) has a unique location or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the city; or (f) embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; or (g) reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; or (h) conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship, or association. 20.21.10 STRUCTURE OF MERIT DESIGNATION CRITERIA. A cultural resource may be designated by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Board as a structure of merit, as defined in Section 20.10.010(w), and pursuant to this title if it: (a) represents in its location an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city; or La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 4-8 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion (b) materially benefits the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the neighborhood; or (c) is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community, or area; or (d) is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; or (e) contributes to an understanding of contextual significance of a neighborhood, community, or area. 20.26.10 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION AREA DESIGNATION CRITERIA. A neighborhood conservation area, as defined in Section 20.10.010(o), may be designated by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Board pursuant to the provisions of this title. A geographic area may be designated as a Neighborhood Conservation Area by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Board if it: (a) provides a contextual understanding of the broader patterns of Riverside's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; or (b) represents established and familiar visual features of a neighborhood, community, or of the city; or (c) reflects significant development or geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth; or (d) conveys a sense of historic or architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship, or association. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 4-9 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 4-10 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 5. BACKGROUND 5.1 Environment The project APE contains an assemblage of non-native grasses and ruderal vegetation (plants that tend to colonize disturbed areas of soil). Within the non-native grassland areas of the APE, jimson weed (Datura stramonium), Mediterannean Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), and common sunflower (Helianthus annul) were observed, particularly in the heavily vegetated northwest corner of the APE. Some areas presented an almost a complete dominance of non-native grasses (northern half), while other areas were heavily populated with ruderal herbs like the Russian Thistle (tumbleweeds in the southern half). Many small lizards were observed inside the APE, as well as the bones of medium sized rodents and rodent holes in the ground. The APE has been disked or mowed as part of regular maintenance of the lot. The closest water system is the Riverside Canal, located 0.3 miles southeast of the APE. This is an artificial water source constructed around 1874 that was used through 1914. The canal was capable of holding water until the 1950s, but after that time fell into disrepair (McKenna 2005). The canal was used to irrigate the soil in the area, and the area inside the project APE likely benefited from this water source. Historic aerial maps show a plowed field in the APE area in 1948 and 1966, as well as a citrus grove southeast of the APE, in the direction of the canal. Geologically, the project APE is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges province, which adjoins the Transverse Ranges province on the north, the Colorado Desert province on the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean on the west (Jenkins 1980). Geologists Morton and Cox (2001) have mapped the geological formation underneath the APE as Qyf, or young alluvial fan deposits of Holocene and late Pleistocene age. According to Morton and Cox, Qyf is "grey hued, unconsolidated sand and pebble to gravel sized deposits derived from lithicly diverse sedimentary units." The type of sand in the area is "derived from varied metamorphic and granitic lithologies" in the Peninsular Ranges (Morton and Cox 2001). This APE sits on relatively flat land; however, there is an elevation change in the middle of the APE of about 15 feet due to the building up of the footing of an old abandoned road. This action has resulted in the formation of a small hill extending in an east -west direction on the western side of the APE. The APE is approximately 791 feet above mean sea level (USDA 2013). 5.2 Paleoenvironmental Change Resource information on paleonvironmental history is not discussed specifically for Riverside County but for the Southern California area as a whole. During the warming and cooling periods associated with the Miocene and Pliocene Epochs (23.03 to 2.6 million years ago), most of the greater Los Angeles Basin and the surrounding hills went through periods of submersion. During the Pleistocene Epoch, from 2 6 million to 11,700 years ago, movement of and collision between tectonic plates formed hills and mountains where the ocean bottom and valleys once existed. Erosion cut through these older sediments as they were uplifted from the terrain that now exists, creating the valleys and the mountain ranges surrounding them. Due to the combined effects of a rise in sea level and global climate fluctuation, dramatic environmental changes have occurred during the Holocene era (11,700 years ago to present) in the coastal portion of Southern California. While the extent to which these changes affected human land use is still being investigated, research has shown that the effects of these environmental changes on the subsistence and settlement patterns of the prehistoric inhabitants of the area were significant. The effects of post -glacial sea level changes (Shumway et al. 1961; Warren and Pavesic 1963) and periods of high climatic La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion variability (Larson and Michaelson 1989; Raab and Larson 1997; Jones et al. 1999) on coastal ecosystems have been examined as possible causes of the broad scale changes observed in the cultural patterns of prehistoric groups in this area during the late Holocene. Some of the ways that these environmental changes appear to have affected the subsistence and settlement patterns of prehistoric and historic human populations in Los Angeles County are briefly discussed below. The climate of the early Holocene in coastal southern California was marked by pronounced warming and increased aridity between approximately 7,800 and 5,000 years before present (BP) (Carbone 1991), during the widely recognized climatic interval known as the Altithermal. It has long been recognized that Holocene climate shifts resulted in dynamic ecosystem changes. For coastal populations in the region, perhaps the most important of these was the evolution of the coastal lagoon/estuary systems at the mouths of the major drainages in this area. At the close of the Pleistocene, the coastal plain was crossed by a series of deeply incised drainages. As sea levels rose, these drainages began to flood, forming deep embayments that formed highly productive estuaries. The warm and arid Altithermal period was followed by a cool, moist interval that persisted until about 2,000 BP in coastal southern California. This period, known as the mid -Holocene, is documented by incursions of fresh water at San Joaquin Marsh at approximately 3800 BP, 2800 BP, and 2300 BP (Davis 1992). Climate changes in coastal southern California during the last 2,000 years or the Late Holocene are better understood, due largely to the more recent and readily apparent nature of their impact on the local environment. Among the clearest of these more recent climatic records is a 1,600-year-old tree ring record reported by Larson and Michaelson (1989) for the transverse ranges, and the pollen record produced from samples at San Joaquin Marsh. The early period of the reconstructed climate produced by the tree ring study (AD 500 to 1000) documented a high degree of variability in yearly precipitation levels during this time period. Progressively lower yearly precipitation levels from AD 500 to 750 resulted in extreme drought conditions from AD 750 to 770. This drought period was followed by a 200-year period (AD 800 to 1000) that was characterized by the highest precipitation levels of the entire 1,600-year reconstruction (Larson and Michaelson 1989). Paleo-climatic records from a wide variety of contexts consistently indicate that generally higher temperatures and extreme droughts characterized the period between AD 1000 and 1300. This event, known as the Medieval Warm period or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, has interpretive importance because it coincides with important cultural changes observed in the archaeological record throughout California (Raab and Larson 1997; Jones et al. 1999; Stine 1990, 1994). True and Waugh (1982) note that these dry conditions may have contributed to the seasonal settlement shift to upland summer camps. The winter camps positioned along the lower Oaks of the mountains would likely experience decreasing water supplies, forcing inhabitants to move to locales with a more reliable water supply. These warm, dry conditions reversed sharply by about 600 years ago, correlating with the beginning of the climatic event known as the Little Ice Age (Grove 1986). A variety of data from southern California indicates both generally lower temperatures and increased precipitation during this interval. In a recent review of historic records, Engstrom (1996) provided evidence that the cold, wet climatic conditions characteristic of the Little Ice Age persisted into the early decades of the nineteenth century in coastal southern California. "Southeasters," intense extra -tropical cyclones, brought severe gales, high waves, and high levels of precipitation to the coastal region during the winter months of this period. For the Late Prehistoric and Early Historic occupants, this likely meant more frequent and severe floods than are seen today, as well as generally increased stream flow. Such climatic events may have reopened and kept some of the local estuaries open to the sea for sustained periods. Archaeological evidence for this phenomenon includes the presence of bay mollusks at several Late Prehistoric archaeological sites that are situated on what were the margins of several lagoons along the southern California coast (Masters and Gallegos La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 1997) and the presence of habitation areas along more inland water courses, which date to the Late Period. 5.3 Cultural Setting Several decades of archaeological research in Southern California have resulted in a broad outline of prehistoric developments in this region. Much of this research has emphasized the relationship between human cultural adaptations and environmental systems. In the following section, some of the aspects of Southern Californian prehistory relevant to the current project are outlined, with particular emphasis placed on the cultural changes that have occurred during the past few hundred years. The earliest evidence for human occupations in southern California dates to the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene period. This interval is characterized by a long period of adaptation to environmental changes brought about by the transition from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene (12,000 TO 7500 B.P.) During the Middle Holocene Period (7500 TO 5000 B.P.), general settlement - subsistence patterns were exemplified by a greater emphasis on seed gathering (Beedle et al. 2008). Adaptation to various ecological niches, further population growth, and an increase in sedentism typify the subsequent periods of cultural history in southern California. This orientation toward a growing dependence on both hunting and plant gathering continued into the historic period. Sites in Topanga Canyon (exemplifying the `Topanga Complex') provide evidence of prehistoric occupation of the Los Angeles Basin dating to this interval. During the middle to late Holocene (5000 TO 1500 B.P.), cultural patterns remained similar, however, artifacts at many coastal sites became more elaborate, reflecting an increase in sociopolitical complexity and efficiency in subsistence strategies (Beedle et al. 2008). One example of such a strategy is the introduction of the bow and arrow for hunting. A reliance on the bow and arrow for hunting along with the use of bedrock mortars and milling slicks occurred during the Late Holocene (1500 B.P.- Present). Elaborate mortuary customs along with generous use of asphaltum and the development of extensive trade networks are also characteristic of this period. The Late Horizon appears to represent increases in population size, economic and social complexity, and the appearance of social ranking (Beedle et al. 2008). This project APE falls within the ethnographic boundaries of the Gabrielino band of Native Americans and lies about 1.5 miles west of the western extent of Cahuilla territory. The area also has cultural significance and ties to the Juana° band of Native Americans, whose territory lies only 8 miles south of the APE. Background on these Native American tribal bands is given below. 5.3.1 Gabrielino PRE -CONTACT PERIOD- Gabrieleno The historical and ethnographical pre -contact record for many of California's Native American tribes is relatively sparse. It has been speculated that the Native American people known today as the Gabrieleno (Gabrielino), Tongva, or Kizh (Kitc),' whose Cupan language belongs to the Takic branch of the Uto- 1 There is not universal agreement on the proper traditional name to use for the Gabrieleno. While Tongva (or Gabrielino-Tongva) has been increasingly used in the past few decades, the Kizh Nation, also known as the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, feels it is improper. They (n.d.) explain: "Many groups and organizations utilize the word `Tongva' to describe the peoples that inhabited the greater Los Angeles basin prior to the influence of the Spanish. The use of this term to represent the Gabrieleno Indians has been popularly utilized since the early 1990s, and has quickly disseminated throughout academic and popular literature as fact. Once the San Gabriel Mission was built in 1771, the Native Americans living in this vast area were from then on referred to as the `Gabrielenos' thus named after the mission they were associated with. This pattern of name changing occurred La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-3 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978), migrated to the California region from the Great Basin area in successive waves beginning anywhere from 4000 to 1300 years ago (McCawley 2006). The traditional territory of the Gabrieleno covers approximately 1,500 square miles and extends across most of modern-day Los Angeles and Orange Counties, from Topanga Creek in the north to Aliso Creek in the south, and includes the Santa Catalina, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands (Jurmain and McCawley 2009; Johnston 1962; Bean and Smith 1978). Of the roughly 50 major Gabrieleno villages spread throughout their traditional territory (Figure 4-1) historical records identify at least one in Anaheim in the 1850s named Hotuuknga (or Jutucunga). It was located on the north bank of Wanawna (the Santa Ana River), downstream of Santa Ana Canyon and approximately a quarter of a mile upstream from the old Yorba church (McCawley 2006). While Gabrielenos living in the different villages across their traditional territory shared a collective identity and distinguished themselves from other surrounding tribes through linguistic, religious, kinship and cultural bonds, political identities were associated with home villages and internal material and economic as well as linguistic and metaphysical differences influenced by geography existed. Jurmain and McCawley (2009) explain: Although the Tongva shared a common language and culture, the land shaped and molded their villages in different ways. The character of the Los Angeles region —one of the most geographically diverse places in the world, with high mountains and foothills, broad valleys and prairies, seacoast and offshore islands —impressed upon them, engendering differences in lifestyle and wealth, especially between Indians living on the seacoast and those further inland. The coastal Indians benefited most from this diversity of resources. They had many of the same foods as their inland neighbors —game such as deer, antelope, rabbits, and squirrels as well as plant foods like acorns, seeds, and bulbs — but they also had fish, seals, sea lions, seabirds, and shellfish. By comparison, the Indians living in the valleys had a more restricted diet and were more likely to suffer from droughts and famines Jurmain and McCawley (2009) continue: These regional differences [among the Gabrielenos] went beyond material goods and economic wealth; there were cultural and even philosophical differences as well. The Tongva spoke at least three distinct dialects of their language, one on the Channel Islands and mainland coast, another in the San Gabriel Valley, and a third in the San Fernando Valley (a fourth dialect spoken on distant San Nicolas Island may have been related to. the language of the Luise& Indians to the south). They traded, and even intermarried, with different neighboring tribes like the Chumash, Serrano, and Cahuilla. And they had different religious beliefs about how the world was created and how Indians came into being. The coastal Indians believed the Nocuma, or "Sky," an invisible and all-powerful being, created the earth and its oceans as well as all the trees, plants, animals, fishes, and man. The Indians living in the interior valleys, on the other hand, honored Earth as the giver of all life and held that their creator god Chinigchinich formed man and woman out of clay from a nearby lakebed. throughout all the missions...But prior this —what did we used to call ourselves? How did we identify ourselves as a group? We were known as the Kizh (other spellings or pronunciations include Kij or Kichireno) which means `houses' - we were identified as the people of the willow branch, tule and brush houses." La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-4 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Even with these slight divergences in stories and figures of creation —and despite the fact that "Mess is known concerning the Gabrielino religious system and beliefs than those of their neighbors" (Bean and Smith 1978) and "[m]any of the details surrounding the development and practice of Gabrielino religion remain unclear, due in large measure to the unwillingness of the Gabrielino themselves to divulge sacred knowledge to outsiders" (McCawley 2006)—general characteristics of the Gabrieleno belief system can be delineated. The Gabrieleno believed that a supreme spiritual being ruled a universe composed of three layered, parallel worlds. The first world consisted of sky or heaven, and was the home of the gods and supernatural beings. The second or middle world was where humans dwelled. The third or lower world was inhabited by dangerous creatures and believed to be the embodiment of evil. Their pantheon also included a number of cosmological beings, such as Chinigchinich and Sun and Moon, and sacred beings, such as Crow, Raven, Owl, and Eagle (Bean and Smith 1978; see also McCawley 2006 and Johnston 1962). Gabrieleno shaman played a principal role in negotiating this tripartite cosmos and communicating with sacred beings: "The shaman was the most important person in this system, for only he had the power to travel between the three worlds and intercede with the gods" (Jurmain and McCawley 2009). Ultimately, the traditional Gabrieleno religious system focused its understandings of the universe and its spiritual lessons "on living a proper life on earth" with associated "ceremonies...tuned to the natural world, the seasons, and the major passages in human life such as birth, marriage, and death" (Jurmain and McCawley 2009); the accompanying Gabrieleno morality system centered on social and ritual obligations upholding familial and community relations, obligations, dynamics and cohesion (Jurmain and McCawley 2009; McCawley 2006). The coming of the Spanish and the effects of their colonial missionary impositions in the eighteenth century, however, fundamentally altered both the traditional Gabrieleno religious belief system and the social relations it functioned to uphold; "[p]erhaps the greatest cultural impact the missions had upon the Tongva was in the area of religion" (Jurmain and McCawley 2009). FOEST-CONTACTPERIOD- Gabrieleno Regardless of whether a Western anthropological narrative or Gabrieleno story of creation is given precedence in understanding the origins of the Gabrieleno and their emergence in Southern California in the pre -contact period, what is clear from the historical record is that the first contact between Gabrielenos and European newcomers took place when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo arrived at Santa Catalina Island in 1542 (McCawley 2006; Bean and Smith 1978). While subsequent and sporadic interactions with European explorers may have occurred over ensuing decades, it was not until the Gaspar de Portola expedition in 1769 that the presence of Europeans would begin to fundamentally alter traditional Gabrieleno ways of life (see McCawley 2006). It was common practice of the Spanish Catholics to impose the names of missions on local tribes in their proximity, and it is from Mission San Gabriel Arcangel—established in the heart of traditional Gabrieleno territory on 8 September 1771—that the Gabrieleno received their name.2 The coming of the Spanish and the construction of the missions, which "essentially [served as] coercive religious, labor camps organized primarily to benefit the colonizers" (Castillo 1998), had drastic social, cultural and economic effects. Beginning in 1778, the Mission clergy begin mass conversions of Gabrielenos to Christianity, and despite numerous acts of revolt, rebellion and resistance (Jurmain and McCawley, 2009; McCawley 2006; Bean and Smith 1978)—by 1800 "[m]ost Gabrielinos [were] missionized, dead, or fled to other areas" (Bean and Smith 1978). 2 The Spanish referred to Native Americans living near the Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana as Fernandenos, including some who were part of the Gabrieleno/Tongva/Kizh ethnic group. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-5 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Following independence from Spain, Mexican authorities instituted a process of mission secularization and by 1834 all missions in Southern California had been largely secularized and ranchos established on their lands. While historical records from the secularization period are scarce, it is known that many Native Americans in Southern California were exploited as forced labor during this time by Mexican rancheros (Shipek 1977). The aftermath of the Mexican -America War (1846-1848) and establishment of the state of California in 1850 brought an increasing number of non-native settlers into the territory. A series of moves designed to displace and dispossess California Indians from their land soon followed (see Castillo, 1998; Shipek, 1977). Shipek (1977) explains: Through a complex series of overlapping and contradictory events, inadequate instructions to local officials, and deliberate misrepresentations, legal titles to lands occupied and used by Indians were not acquired under proper procedures from the proper commission. Except for a few rancho grants to individual Indians, legal title was not confirmed to Indian pueblos or other villages. Shipek (1977) continues: However, the primary reason used by Americans to justify taking the land from the Mission Indians was that Indians occupied the best watered lands and that Southern California could not develop until "industrious settlers" acquired them. Even those who advocated fair and humane treatment of Indians...advocated their removal to small reservations where they would still be available to provide farm and ranch labor for the region... As the ranchos began to decline in the 1860s, the need for farm and ranch labor grew as farming, citrus production, and sheep ranching began to dominate the Southern California landscape (Jurmain and McCawley 2009). While many Gabrieleios filled these positions, the spread of disease also became more acute during this time, and from 1860-1900 a smallpox epidemic devastated the Gabrieleno population. With the exception of a few "isolated families and Gabrielinos living in remote areas ...Gabrieleno culture... [remained] only in the minds of a few people [by 1900]" (Bean and Smith 1978). Through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, the United States granted the opportunity for Native Americans to become U.S. citizens while retaining their tribal citizenship. This act was to both acknowledge the role many Native Americans played in World War I and "to further the government's goal of assimilating them into the general population" (Jurmain and McCawley 2009). Despite its underlying assimilationist goal, "[a]s a landless urban tribe, the Tongva well understood the importance of citizenship" (Jurmain and McCawley 2009) as it offered them a more impactful and inclusive political voice. Today, they are still fighting for recognition from the U.S. federal government of their shared and collective tribal identity — an identity which is firmly tied to their traditional territory and ancestral lands. Jurmain and McCawley (2009) explain: Land is the colossus straddling the Gabrielino-Tongva's history, one foot firmly planted in their past, the other stepping uncertainly into their future. Land —and the memory of land —lies at the very foundation of their identity. It exists simultaneously in their cultural memory both as a thing taken from them and, paradoxically, as a thing that can never be lost. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-6 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Some success has been achieved on this front, as the State of California officially recognized the Gabrieleno ("Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe") as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles Basin, their living ties to the land, and the perseverance of their community, in Assembly Joint Resolution 96, Chapter 146 of the Statutes of 1994. At present, no less than four groups represent Gabrieleno interests in Southern California: the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe; the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; and the Kizh Nation, or Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. While disagreements sometimes exist between these groups, and in spite of all of the challenges and struggles the Gabrieleno have faced in confronting the impacts and legacies of dispossession, displacement, imposition and exploitation, a shared Gabrieleno identity and community perseveres and Gabrieleno members remain politically active in the Los Angeles/Orange County area today (see Jurmain and McCawley 2009). his. Tataviam `sb ,. ,San Fernando Serrano ,t1, ,� Ierujunge gaCr. u__ s - ,„,/, \,, , 'ate d ' .,rui EnClilO alley San Gabriel Salta Monica r'Mts1.r ��. q4��� M isslan ,••, ;, opanga.• Canyon: Santa Barbara L • • San Nicolas L 0 10 20 I I Miles E-1-1 Kilometers 0 10 20 Los ■ /� Angeles �.Q 1•J 4 r San Pedro Santa Catalina L . San Clemente L . San Bernardino Rubidaux - - - Santa ,;;Cahuilla „ 1.1Z. Newporrr� 4 ; - .Bay �o, _ •�% .4:7; i ,. ZZ, 1111� •�' 6,0 -. ova ei. Lois Rev R- an Luis Rey 0 • Mission 330 Figure 5-1. Map of Gabrieleno Territory with known settlement locations in darkened area (Adapted from Handbook of North American India ns by Bean and Smith, 1978). La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-7 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 5.3.2 Cahuilla The Cahuilla group of Native Americans lived at the geographic center of Southern California, allowing access to three major trade routes including the Cocopa-Maricopa Trail, a major route that bisected Cahuilla territory. The Colorado Desert separated the Cahuilla from other native bands to the east and south, and the "mountains, hills, and plains separated them from the Luiseno, Serrano, and Gabrieleno" bands to the north and west (Bean 1978). Cahuilla territory included many different types of terrain including mountain ranges, passes, canyons, valleys, and desert. Cahuilla occupied land from the "summit of the San Bernardino Mountains in the north to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains in the south, a portion of the Colorado desert west of Orocopia Mountain to the east, and the San Jacinto Plain near Riverside and the eastern slopes of Palomar Mountain to the west" (Bean 1978). The Cahuilla language belongs to the Cupan subgroup of the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan stock. The Cahuillan language is more similar to Cupeno than to Luiseno (Bean 1978).Tribal cosmology and history were recorded in song , which accompanied games, secular dances, shamanistic activities, and hunting and food gathering (Bean, 1978). The Cahuilla were a non -political, cultural nationality who spoke a common language and recognized two non -political, non -territorial patrimoieties (translated as the Wildcats and the Coyotes). Their political organization consisted of clans of 3-10 lineages, with different dialects and a common genitor. The office of lineage leader was usually inherited from father to eldest son (Bean, 1978). Cahuilla villages were usually positioned in canyons or on alluvial fans near adequate sources of water and food materials in the hopes of protecting the village from the seasonal extremes of temperature, precipitation, and especially wind. Buildings varied in size from brush shelters to dome -shaped or rectangular houses 15-20 feet long. A chief s house, a communal men's sweathouse, several granaries, and ceremonial houses were also usually part of the village (Bean 1978). Cahuilla men were tasked with the hunting and butchering and skinning of prey, while the women cooked the food. The Cahuilla used several hundred species of native plants for food, manufacture, and medicine. Some of these included: acorns, mesquite and screw beans, pinon nuts, the bulbs of Cacti, seeds, wild fruits and berries, tubers, roots, and succulent greens (Bean 1978). Like their neighboring Colorado River tribes, the Cahuilla used marginal agriculture techniques to grow corn, beans, squash, and melon. Stone mortars and pestles were used to process acorns and dried berries, manos and metates were used to grind seeds and soft nuts, and wooden mortars were used to pound fibrous food like mesquite. Grass baskets, sometimes decorated with cosmological symbols or significant beings, were coiled flat for winnowing, shallow for food receptacles, deep for carrying with a net, or globular for small utensils. Pottery was also part of the Cahuilla tradition, and it was often painted and incised and used as cooking pots, open bowls, dishes, or pipes. Soapstone arrow makers, bows, and ceremonial instruments are also known to be part of the Cahuilla tradition. According to A.L. Kroeber, the well informed early 20th century ethnographer, unlike many of their neighbors, the Cahuilla were never completely brought under the control of the mission fathers, probably due to their more remote locations in the eastern desert. Kroeber believes that those Cahuilla living on the western side of their territory "may have been partially affiliated with the submission at San Bernardino, and those from the vicinity Cahuilla Valley, or some of them, seem to have been within the sphere of San Louis Ray or its station at Pala (1925). However, at the time of Kroeber's contact with the Cahuilla the band extensively spoke Spanish and self -identified as Catholic. This could be due to the fact that after the secularization of the missions, Kroeber says that "many of the Cahuilla entered into relations with the Spaniards on the grants in the fertile portion of Southern California, either as seasonal visitors or as more permanent peons" (1925). La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-8 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Pala Missi�i`/f�lli, Luiseno San Luis Rey Misslon Ipai 9 Santa Ysabei Tipai v :i In, //nr•:,/ h . 18/11,. i/Irlli lW n1` 1 Spring 0 70 20 I I I I I Kilometers 0 10 20 Figure 5-2. Map of Cahuilla Territory with tribal territory in darkened area and villages numbered (Adapted from Handbook of North American Indians by Lowell Bean, 1978). 5.3.3 Juaneno I Mlles The affiliations of the early prehistoric peoples living in the project area are poorly understood; however, about 1,300 years ago the Juaneno (or Acjachemen, as they called themselves) began to settle the area just south of the APE. The Juaneno were hunters and gatherers of the San Luis Rey Cultural Pattern who speak a language that is part of the Takic language family. Their traditional tribal territory was situated partly in northern San Diego County and partly in southern Orange County. These settlement boundaries include Las Pulgas Creek to the south, Aliso Creek in the north, the Pacific Ocean on the western side and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. Juaneno Villages were mostly located along San Juan Creek, Trabuco Creek and San Mateo Creek. Much of what is known of Juaneno culture comes from an account written by a missionary at the San Juan Capistrano Mission and recounted by A.L. Kroeber, the well known ethnographer of the Native Americans in California in the early 20th century. According to Kroeber and researchers who followed him, much of Juaneno culture is similar to and possibly should not be thought of as distinct from Luiseno culture. Juanenos, like Luisenos, lived in groups with other relatives in a patrilineal society. These groups had established claims to places including the sites of their villages and resource areas. Marriages in these societies were usually arranged from outside villages establishing a social network of related peoples in the region. When marriage was first proposed, a gift was given to the bride's family (Kroeber 1925). Juaneno women are known to have been the primary gathers of plants foods, but also gathered shellfish and trapped small game animals. Men hunted large and small game, fished, and assisted with plant food gathering (especially acorns). Adults were actively involved in making tools including nets, arrows, bows, traps, food preparation items, pottery and ornaments. Like in nearby Luiseno society, tribal elders had important political and religious responsibilities and were involved in education of younger La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-9 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion members (Bean and Shipek 1978). Juaneno and Luise& houses were typically conical in shape and thatched with locally available plant materials. Work areas were often shaded by rectangular brush - covered roofs (ramada). Each village had a ceremonial structure in the center enclosed by a circular fence where all religious activities were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978). There was a well - developed political system including a hereditary (on the male -line or held in abeyance for a male to be born) chief who received voluntary contributions of food from his people (Kroeber 1925). Religious ceremonies included rites of passage at puberty and mourning rituals, and shamans were part of Juaneno religion (Kroeber 1925). Serrano �0 ./ice �`a'� �rcn.+'+1/4 I��4s,"e.'�antiaga Peak Q; 'r 5'696 Lake Etsinore Pacific Ocean 0 5 10 . 1 I Miles �n Kilometers 0 5 10 Son Rlncon _,.4San Luis Rey !Mission „FA -Oceanside ua lled"laez 1,0 1117° �`94 Temecula Land grant Pechanga s!, Palomar Mt. 6,138 P�auma Pala` Potrer. > Yapiche La Jolla Cite La Jolla uka Land grant 0 33°30' Figure 5-3. Map of Juaneno Territory with known settlement locations in darkened area (Adapted from Handbook of North American Indians by Bean and Shipek, 1978). 5.4 Fistory The history of Southern California can be broken down into three major periods: Spanish (1769-1822, Mexican (1822-1848), and American (1848—present). The Spanish colonization of California was achieved through a program of military -civilian -religious conquest. Under this system, soldiers secured areas for settlement by suppressing Native and foreign resistance and established fortified structures (presidios) from which the colony would be governed. Civilians established towns (pueblos) and stock -grazing operations (ranchos) that supported the settlement and provided products for export. Ultimately, four presidios and 21 missions were established in Spanish California between La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-10 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 1769 and 1821. In the late 18th century, the Spanish mission fathers of San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego) began colonizing the land and gradually used the interior valley in what is now western Riverside County for raising grain and cattle (County of Riverside 2015). During this period, Spain claimed all of California and Mexico. In 1821, after more than a decade of revolutionary struggle, Mexico achieved independence from Spain, and California became a distant outpost of the Mexican Republic. Under a law adopted by the Mexican congress in 1833, the mission lands were to be secularized and subdivided into land grants, or ranchos, to be sold to prominent military and politicians. The missions were given ten years to complete their education of the Native Americans before the enactment of the Secularization Act of 1833. This act privatized the Franciscans' landholdings, redistributing the lands and holdings through land grants. This land redistribution resulted in the presence of several major ranchos located in the region, including: Rancho La Sierra, Rancho Jurupa, and Rancho El Rincon. Rancho La Sierra was a 17,769-acre Mexican land grant (1846) located between Rancho Jurupa and Rancho El Rincon extending from the present day city of Norco to western side of the City of Riverside. Rancho La Sierra was owned by the Yorba Family, a prominent California ranching family which originally hailed from the San Juan Capistrano area, who had obtained the claim through marriage into the Sepulveda family, the recipients of the Rancho San Vicente and Santa Monica land grant. Beginning in the early 1840s, Mexico's hold on California was threatened by the steady overland migration of American settlers into the region. War between the U.S. and Mexico commenced in May 1846. The United States eventually prevailed, and the American victory over Mexico was formalized in February 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States the present states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado (City of Simi Valley 2012). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that the Mexican and Spanish land grants would be honored. As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho La Sierra was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852, and the grant was patented to Vicenta Sepulveda (formally Vicenta Yorba) in 1877. In January 1848, just a few days before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, James Marshall discovered gold on the American River. Marshall's discovery triggered the gold rush, a massive influx of fortune -seekers into California that led to the creation of major cities and numerous smaller settlements (City of Simi Valley 2012). The influx of settlers also caused a large increase in the demand for beef. This demand for cattle to feed the gold rush miners resulted in a search for easier access to the lands north of LA and east into the Mojave Desert (Wlodarski 1999). The sudden and enormous growth of California's population brought about by the gold rush resulted in a movement for statehood that culminated in the state constitutional convention at Monterey in 1849 and the establishment of California as a state in 1850. In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act encouraging western migration by offering 160 acres in exchange for a small fee, encouraging settlement in the area. The City of Riverside was founded in 1870 in today's downtown area by John North and a group of people from the east coast who wished to establish a colony dedicated to furthering education and culture (City of Riverside 2015). In the next few years two other small villages in the Arlington (a few miles north east of this project's APE) and La Sierra (one mile north of this project's APE) areas were founded and eventually merged with Riverside in 1875. The City of Riverside was incorporated in 1883. The first orange trees were planted in 1871, but the citrus industry in Riverside began two years later when Eliza Tibbets received two Brazilian navel orange trees sent to her by a friend at the Department of Agriculture in Washington. The trees thrived in the Southern California climate and the navel orange industry grew rapidly. Within a few years, the successful cultivation of the newly discovered navel orange led the establishment of the citrus industry. By 1882, there were more than half a million citrus trees in California, almost half of which were in Riverside. The development of refrigerated railroad cars and La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-11 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion innovative irrigation systems established Riverside as the wealthiest city per capita by 1895 (City of Riverside 2015). To the west of the village of Arlington, a Los Angeles based land developer named Willitts Hole purchased around 20,000 acres of land between Riverside and Norco in 1909 and turned it into productive agricultural land. Hole Ranch covered almost the entire area of La Sierra at its peak (Love 2001). In the 1880s Riverside County followed the pattern of the rest of southern California: large Spanish or Mexican land grants being sold and developed for small-scale agriculture (Beedle et al. 2008). Riverside County was officially established in May of 1893 in a referendum of voters living within an area carved from San Bernardino County and San Diego County. The county's early years were linked to agriculture but commerce, construction, manufacturing, transportation, and tourism also thrived (County of Riverside, 2015). Recent years have brought dramatic population growth. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of residents grew by over 76 percent, making Riverside the fastest -growing county in California. By 1992, the County was housed over 1.3 million residents. Since 1992, the population has nearly doubled. Western Riverside continues to be referred to as La Sierra after Rancho La Sierra. There are four separate city neighborhoods beginning with the name La Sierra in Riverside. After the Seventh -day Adventist Church purchased a large section of the land, they opened the La Sierra Academy, today known as La Sierra University. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-12 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 5-13 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 6. IVETHODS 6.1 Pre -Field Research On July 21, 2015, HDR archaeologist Margaret Diss travelled to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for a records search of all archaeological and historical resources within one-half mile of the project APE (Figure 6-1). On August 3, 2015, a request was submitted to the NAHC for a search of Sacred Lands File. On August 7, 2015 a letter was submitted to the Riverside Historical Society to request information and solicit any concerns regarding the project. A review of an online database, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC site (HistoricalAerials.com), was also completed. Aerial photographs (1948, 1966, 1967, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012) and United States Geological Service (USGS) maps (1939, 1941, 1942, 1955, 1962, 1969, 1975, and 1981) were reviewed. A representation of the historic aerial photographs can be found in Section 7. The results of these searches are discussed below as well as the consultation with the appropriate Native American groups. 6.1.1 Previously Recorded Resources The records search completed by the EIC indicates there are two known archaeological resources within one-half mile of the project APE, and five historic resources within one-half mile of the project APE. These resources are summarized in Table 6.1 and 6.2 and graphically displayed in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Table 6-1. Previously Recorded Resources within One -Half Mile of Project APE. Primary Number Description Eligibility Project Effects P-33-7900 Wood Frame Single Family Historic Property Not Eligible Outside APE/ No Affect P-33-7899 Gable/Front Wing Single Family Historic Property Not eligible for the NRHP/ Eligible on a local level Outside APE/ No Affect P-33-24093 Arizona Middle School, an Educational Building Not Eligible Outside APE/ No Affect P-33-2242 Four Milling Features on two Bedrock Boulders Not Eligible Outside APE/ No Affect P-33-2243 Five Milling Features on Three Bedrock Boulders Not Eligible Outside APE/ No Affect P-33-4791 Riverside Canal Not Evaluated Outside APE/ No Affect P-33-6005 Sections of Irrigation Flume, (Water Conveyance System) Not Eligible Outside APE/ No Affect La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion APE Cultural Resource Q 1i2 mile Records Search Radius 0 1,250 2,500 Meters 0 250 500 1,000 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane Calkrnia VI FIPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Sources: USGS ESRI World Street Map © 2009 ESRI 5,000 Feet N A 1:24,000 P-37600z -33-24 937 u •�i Riverside West, CA USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle Figure 6-1. Previously recorded resources within one-half mile of project APE. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 6.2 Initial Native American Coordination On August 3, 2015, a request was submitted to the NAHC for a search of their Sacred Lands File. The results of the NAHC Sacred Land Files search have not yet been received: however, it is expected that the NAHC will indicate no areas of concern within the one-half mile radius. The search will include a contact list of Native American individuals or organizations who may have additional information regarding sacred resources in the area and who will be contacted regarding the proposed scope of the project. Letters will be mailed individuals/groups on the list as soon as the NAHC response is received. Results can be found in Appendix B. 6.3 Feld Methods HDR archaeologist Margaret Diss conducted the cultural resource survey for the La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project on July 24, 2015. Preliminary efforts consisted of the review of records within the project area and the generation of a map of the recorded cultural resources within and near the APE using a geographic information system (GIS). The HDR archaeologist used a systematic detailed field inspection to identify known and unknown cultural resources within the APE. Ms. Diss surveyed 100 percent of the project APE in linear transects with 5 meter (m) spacing plus an additional 10 m buffer outside the APE when not prevented from doing so by a chain link fence. The survey was conducted using locational data provided in the records search, and the APE photographed with a digital camera and mapped with a sub meter accurate Trimble GeoTX global positioning system (GPS) unit. The project APE is accessible through a regularly locked chain linked fence that opens onto Indiana Avenue. The APE boundary follows the delineation of the dirt lot: the chain link fence between the lot and the RR to the north, the concrete brick and chain link fence between the dirt lot and the bowling alley parking lot to the east, the sidewalk and chain link fence along Indiana Avenue, and the chain link fence and ornamental vegetation between the dirt lot and the existing Metrolink parking lot to the west (Photograph 6-1). The HDR archaeologist provided an exhaustive ground inspection of the APE, as the ground visibility was quite good in all areas except the northwest corner of the APE, which is covered in vegetation (Photograph 6-2). The APE was surveyed in north -south transects, except when following a feature such as the hill in the middle of the APE. Much of the northern side of the APE within two feet of the chain link fence is sprinkled in gravel from the rail road ballast located on the other side of the fence. The northeastern side of the APE, near the Railroad tracks and the bowling alley parking lot, is scattered with modern trash (Photograph 6-3). There is an abandoned section of the road extending from the eastern side of the APE to the middle of the APE, where it abruptly ends (Photograph 6-4). Half of the APE closest to Indiana Avenue is about 15 feet higher than the rest, and the resultant small hill between the elevations was surveyed for a second time in an east -west direction (Photograph 6-5). One palm tree stands on the eastern side of the APE, in the middle of the lot, as well as one telephone pole on the lot's western side. Per guidance of the SHPO website, built resources including buildings, structures, objects, etc. that are 45 years of age or older in the APE were recorded during the survey. The year 1970 was used as the threshold for surveying built resources La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-3 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Photograph 6-1. Overview of APE northwest corner facing east. Photograph 6-3. Northeast corner of the dirt lot/ APE. facing west. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-4 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Photograph 6-3. Northeast corner of the dirt lot/ APE. facing west. Photograph 6-4. Abandoned road. Southeast corner facing north. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-5 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Photograph 6-5. Hill in the middle of the APE extending east -west, facing east. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-6 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 6-7 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 7. RESULTS One new historical resource falls within the APE for this project and no archaeological sites fall within the APE for this project. Two pre-recorded archaeological sites and five historic sites are located outside of the APE (the closest is about 1000 feet south of the APE) and will not be impacted by the project. 7.1 Abandoned Section of Indiana Avenue (HDR-001). A section of abandoned paved road with two solid yellow stripes going down the center was discovered during the field survey (Photograph 7-1). The section starts about 20 ft. northwest of the eastern corner of the APE and extends about 230 feet towards the center of the APE, away from Indiana Avenue. A review of the online database at HistoricalAerials.com shed light on the origin and date of the abandoned section of road extending into the project APE. Aerial photographs from 1948 and 1980 show Indiana Avenue. in the same position as the abandoned road (Figure 7-1). The 1994 historic aerial shows a realigned Indiana Avenue into its current position and shows the surveyed portion of the road abandoned in place (Figure 7-2). It seems the 15 ft elevation change in the middle of the APE is due to the building up of the footing of the abandoned section of road (however, the road pavement has been removed on the western side of the APE). This action has resulted in the formation of a small hill extending in an east -west direction on the western side of the APE, which can also be seen in the 1994 historic aerial extending out from the abandoned section of road. This abandoned section of road was recorded as HDR-001 due to its appearance on the 1948 aerial (Figure 7-3). The DPR form can be found in Appendix C. In 1948, the road appeared to have been a dirt road. Improvements in the form of paving can be seen on the 1980 aerial (see Figure 7-1). In its current condition, the road has been mostly destroyed and only a 247 foot section of the road remains and is in poor condition (Figure 7-4). 7.1.1 Evaluation of FDR 001 Site HDR-001 is a section of Indiana Avenue that represents its original alignment. This small section of the road was abandoned and realigned sometime after 1980. This section of Indiana Avenue is not a contributing resource to the area's transportation history or to its community planning efforts under Criterion A. The history of the area suggests that this abandoned section of Indiana Avenue is not associated with any significant historic persons and is not significant under Criterion B. This abandoned section of road has no character defining features and its design and scale are standard for two-lane surface roads in the area. Its scale, function, and location indicate it was not distinguished by its construction and does not represent the work of a master. Therefore, it is not significant under Criterion C. This section of the road is unlikely to yield information important to the past, and so it is not significant under Criterion D. Alterations to the road after 1948 include paving and striping. The integrity of the road's location is intact, but the setting and association has been destroyed. Modifications to the road and road abandonment have left the road in poor condition and it lacks integrity. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR, either individually or as a contributing resource to Indiana Avenue. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 7-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion i -= _g -' .."' --, C1- Photograph 7-1. Section of abandoned, realigned Indiana Avenue. View from terminus of paved portion near middle of APE, facing east. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 7-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion APE 100 200 400 Feet Meters 25 50 100 1:3,200 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane California VI FPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Source of aerial! historicaerials.com Figure 7-1. Historic Aerial taken in 1980 showing Indiana Avenue. in position of abandoned road. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 7-3 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 100 200 400 Feet Meters 25 50 100 1:3,200 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane California VI FIPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Source of aerial: histoncaerials.com Figure 7-2. Historic Aerial taken in 1994 with abandoned road and new alignment of Indiana Avenue. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California 7-4 August 2015 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion APE 100 200 400 Feet Meters 25 50 100 1:3 200 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane California VI FPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Source of aerial! historicaerials.com Figure 7-3. Historic Aerial taken in 1948 showing the house in the northeast corner of the APE. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 7-5 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion H D R-001 APE 0 100 200 400 Feet Meters 0 25 50 100 1:3,200 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic State Plane California VI FIPS O406 feet North American Datum of 1983 Source of aerial: historicaerials.com Figure 7-4. Aerial showing location of the road (purple) within the APE (red). La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 7-6 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 7.2 Building Materials Near the end of the abandoned road in the middle of the APE is a pile of building material including rocks, small pieces of concrete, and flooring or wall tile (Pictures 7-2). There is a concentration of rocks at the end and on top of the abandoned road, a concentration of concrete and bricks to the north of the end of the paved road, and another concentration of rocks further north of the end of the road. The flooring or wall tile is scattered throughout the other building materials, but is concentrated in the rocks that sit atop the road. None of this building material is datable. From the historic aerials spanning 1948-2012 it seems clear there was not a house or any other structure in the current position of the building material (see Figure 7-3). It is likely the material was dumped into its current location after the removal of the house that once stood in the northeast corner of the APE. This house was demolished after 1980 and before 1994, likely at the same time as the road realignment and the building of the bowling alley in the lot to the east (see Figures 7-1 and 7-2). Other items of trash from the road and other unknown sources are mixed in with the concrete and rocks. This is a conglomeration of undiagnostic, historically insignificant building trash and does not require a site form or evaluation. Photograph 7-2. Building materials. View facing east. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 7-7 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 8. FINDING OF EFFECT/IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8.1 Finding of Effects A project is considered to have significant effect on historic properties if directly or indirectly alters the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Examples of adverse effects include: • Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; • Alteration of a property that is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68); • Removal of the property from its historic location; • Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance; • Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; • Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration; and • Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance (36 CFR Part 800.5(a) (2)). The above criteria of adverse effect are applied to historic properties in the project APE and one of three findings is determined: 1. No Historic Properties Affected; 2. No Adverse Effect; 3. Adverse Effect. 8.1.1 Effects This assessment considered potential effects of the project on both historical resources and archaeological resources, generally related to physical destruction of a resource or changes in the visual setting. While physical destruction can occur to both archaeological and historical architectural resources, visual impacts are typically only considered for architectural resources. No previously recorded archaeological resources lie within the project APE. One newly recorded historical resource was identified in this survey, however it is not significant and not eligible for the NHRP or the CRHR. Impacts to buried prehistoric human remains within the APE were considered and determined to be low. No prehistoric human remains have been previously recorded or discovered within the vicinity of the half mile radius of the APE through a recent survey. Therefore, a finding of No Adverse Effect is appropriate and recommended for this project. 8.2 Impact Assessment A project is considered to have significant impact on the environment if it: • Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource; • Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource; • Disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 8-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a substantial adverse change to mean physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. To avoid an adverse change, CEQA recommends preservation of the historical resource through avoidance; when a resource can not be avoided by project activities, the effects must be addressed and mitigated as outlined in PRC 15126.4 and 15331. The criteria applied to determine impacts are: • Potentially significant impact; • Less than significant impact with mitigation; • Less than significant impact; • No impact. 8.2.1 Impacts Both direct and indirect impacts were considered for this project. Direct impacts result from construction related activities such as road grading, vegetation clearing, trenching, and installing structures, among other activities. Indirect impacts can occur as a result of changing the use of the landscape. For example, increased public access to a remote location can result in unauthorized recreational use and vandalism. Indirect effects related to public access are not expected with the current project. Potential direct impacts of the La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project on cultural resources would generally be related to physical destruction of a resource or changes in the visual setting. While physical destruction can occur to both archaeological and architectural resources, visual impacts are typically only considered for architectural resources. No significant historic properties, no architectural resources, and no archaeological resources lie within the project APE. A determination of Less than Significant Impact under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is appropriate and recommended for this project. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 8-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 9. RECOMVENDATIONS Below are management recommendations based on the finding of No Historic Properties Affected/No Impact. HDR recommends that prior to construction activities, construction personnel should be briefed on procedures to follow in the event buried human remains or unanticipated cultural resources are encountered. 9.1 Inadvertent Discoveries In the event of a discovery, work will be stopped within the immediate area of the find until a professional archaeologist can determine the nature of the resources discovered. As appropriate, the archaeologist will assist Project personnel in avoiding the newly discovered resources or in implementing management measures to evaluate the significance and potential eligibility of the resources for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, or any local registers, as appropriate. If the discovery is determined to be a site, after securing the work area from additional disturbance, in concert with the Construction Foreman or Field Supervisor, the archaeological monitor will notify the Principle Investigator. The PI will determine what additional fieldwork is necessary, such as a limited test excavation, to determine the site's potential eligibility for the CRHR or the NRHP. It may be determined that a site visit by the PI is necessary to make that determination. If test excavation is required to evaluate a discovery, this will be discussed in consultation with the lead agency. 9.2 Human Remains If any previously unrecorded human remains are inadvertently discovered during operation or maintenance all ground -disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery must cease immediately and a 50 ft wide buffer will be established around it. California State law (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99) will be followed on state, county, and private land. This law specifies that work will stop immediately in any areas where human remains or suspected human remains are encountered. The lead agency and the County Coroner will be immediately notified of the discovery. The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after being notified by the lead agency. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC who will determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The NAHC will immediately notify the identified MLD and the MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations to the landowner or representative for the respectful treatment or disposition of the remains and grave goods. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the area of the property must be secured from further disturbance. If no recommendation is given, the lead agency or his or her authorized representative shall re -inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 9-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 9-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion 10. REFERENCES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2013 Section 106Regulations Summary, 4-18-2013. ACHP. Accessed on 1-27-2015. http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html. Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell J. 1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. Beedle, Peggy, Keith Warren, and David Earle: Applied Earthworks, Inc. 2008 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Expansion Simi Valley, California. In Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Expansion Project, Final EIR. www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/cega/eir. Carbone, L. 1991 Early Holocene Environments and Paleoecological Contexts on the Central and Southern California Coast. In Hunter -Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Cohen, pp. 11-18. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Castillo, Edward D. 1998 Short Overview of California Indian History. http://ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html. City of Riverside 2015 History of Riverside. http://www.riversideca.gov/visiting-aboutriv.asp. Accessed 8-5- 2015. City of Riverside Planning Department 2015 Cultural Resources Designation Applications. http://www.riversideca.gov/historic/pdf/ CR Designation_ Applications.pdf City of Simi Valley 2012 Simi Valley General Plan EIR, Volume I_10, Section 4. Historic -Cultural Resources. http://www.simivalley.org. County of Riverside 2015 Riverside County History. http://www.countyofriverside.us/Visitors/ CountyofRiversideInformation/ RiversideCountyHistory.aspx. Accessed August-5-2015. Davis, O. K. 1992 Rapid Climatic Change in Coastal Southern California Inferred from Pollen Analysis of San Joaquin Marsh. Quaternary Research 37:89-100. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 10-1 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Engstrom, W. N. 1996 The 19th Century Physical Geography of the Rancho Santa Margarita Las Flores (Camp Pendleton) Coastline. In Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Horno Canyon, Camp Pendleton, California, edited by B. F. Byrd, pp. 33-44. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego, California. Environmental Protection Agency, United States 2012 Compliance Basics. June 25, 2012. The NEPA Process. Accessed 1-27-15. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html. Grove, J. M. 1986 The Little Ice Age. Methuen, New York. Jenkins, Olaf P. 1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2). California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Jones, T., G. M. Brown, L. M. Raab, J. L. McVickar, W. G. Spaulding, D. J. Kennet, A. York, and P. L. Walker 1999 Demographic Crisis in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology, (2):137-170. Jurmain, Claudia and William McCawley 2009 O, My Ancestor: Recognition and Renewal for the Gabrielino-Tongva People of the Los Angeles Area. Heyday Books: Berkeley, California. King, Thomas F. 2008 Cultural Resource Laws & Practice, AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York. Larson, D. O. and J. Michaelson 1989 Climatic Variability: A Compounding Factor Causing Culture Change among Prehistoric Coastal Populations. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, California State University Long Beach. Love, Bruce and Bai "Tom" Tang, Michael Hogan, and Mariam Dandul 2001 Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Arlington Desalter and Pipeline, Unpublished CRM Report on file at the EIC. Riverside, California. McCawley, William 2006 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication: Banning, California. McKenna, Jeanette 2005 CA-RIV-4791H Update. From A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Alvord High School Site at the Frost Reservoir on Indiana Avenue in the City of Riverside, Riverside Co, CA. On File at the Eastern Information Center, Riverside, CA. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 1 0-2 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Masters, P. M. and D. Gallegos 1997 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County during the Middle Holocene. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by J. M. Erlandson and M. A. Glassow, pp.l 1-22. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. University of California, Los Angeles, California. Miles, Scott R. and Charles B. Goudey 1997 Ecological Subregions of California Section and Subsection Descriptions. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwest Region. Morton, Douglas M. and Brett Cox 2001 Geologic Map of the Riverside West 7.5 Quadrangle, Riverside County, CA. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 01-451, Washington D.C. National Park Service (NPS) 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated]. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/arch_stnds_O.htm, accessed November 19, 2008. Raab, L. M., and D. O. Larson 1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 62(2):319-336. Section 106 of NHPA 1966 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60.4. 54 U.S.C. § 306108 Shipek, Florence Connolly 1977 A Strategy for Change: The Luiseiio of Southern California. Dissertation, University of Hawaii. Shumway, G., C. L. Hubbs, and J. R. Moriarty 1961 Scripps Estates site, San Diego California: a La Jolla Site Dated 5460 to 7370 Years Before Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93 (3), 37-132. New York. Stine, S. 1990 Late Holocene fluctuations of Mono Lake, Eastern California. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, and Paleoecology 78:333-381. 1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time. Nature 369:546-549. True, D. L. and Georgie Waugh, 1982 Proposed Settlement Shifts During San Louis Rey Times: Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2):34-54. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2014 Web Soil Survey. Version 7, 9-26-2014. West San Fernando Valley Area, Los Angeles County, California. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed 1-15-2015. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 10-3 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Warren, C. N. and M. Pavesic 1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site CA-SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County. In University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report, Vol. 5, pp. 411-438. University Press, Los Angeles, California. Wlodarski, Robert. 1999 A Phase 1 Archaeological Study: The Golden Valley Road-Soledad Canyon Rd Interchange Project, Unpublished CRM Report, Historical, Environmental, Archaeological, Research Team, on file at SCCIC. Fullerton, California. La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 10-4 Cultural Resources Report, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project, Riverside, California August 2015 10-1 A Resumes of Key Personnel EDUCATION M.A., International Relations (History Emphasis), New York University 2011 B.A, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2003 REGISTRATIONS e-RAILSAFE Trained — RWP, BNSF, UPRR Metrolink Roadway Worker Trained PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology San Diego County Archaeological Society INDUSTRY TENURE 6 years HDR TENURE 3 years OFFICE LOCATION Balboa Ave, San Diego, CA Margaret Diss Archaeologist Ms. Diss has over 5 years of experience in cultural resource management and specializes in the implementation and direction of projects for federal clients, utility companies, and state agencies. Specific duties include archival research, field preparation, direction of fieldwork, field evaluations, survey and excavations, and report writing. She has successfully conducted the field research for projects reviewed under guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines specified with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Ms. Diss specializes in the identification of prehistoric and historic cultural resources and has specialized skills in historic research and evaluation. Cultural resource tasks or roles preformed include project management, archaeological surveys, historical resources survey, historical resources evaluation/eligibility investigations, and archaeological monitoring. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Sempra Energy/SDG&E, On Call Cultural Resources, San Diego County, 2012- 2018. Archaeologist/ Field Crew Chief. Supported the undertakings of SDG&E for new construction, on -going maintenance, and repair projects by conducting cultural resources inventories for various projects throughout the company service territory. Coordinated with other cultural resources staff and subcontractors to implement, organize, conduct, and complete numerous small- to large-scale projects with overlapping schedules for Sempra Energy/SDG&E. Value: $1,250,000. Examples of projects include: • Talega Synchronous Condensers, Task 1, San Clemente, CA • Wood to Steel Pole Conversion TL 6910, San Diego County • Wood to Steel Pole Conversion TL 6914, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA • Ramona Project Pole Survey Task 65, San Diego, CA • Alpine Project Pole Survey Task 64, San Diego, CA (Technical Report) • Miguel Substation Expansion, San Diego County • San Ysidro Install New 12KV Circuit, San Diego County Task 071 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Cultural Resources Monitoring, Perris Valley Line Construction Project, Riverside County, CA, 08/2013-Ongoing. Cultural Monitor for PVL portion & Cultural Project Manager for the PVL PTC Tower Portion of the Project. HDR EOC is providing all environmental monitoring for the construction project. Ms. Diss is responsible for monitoring compliance and Native American relations for the PVL Construction portion and cultural monitoring plan development for the PTC Tower Portion. Value: $160,000 (cultural monitoring only). NAVFAC SW, Archaeological Site Recordation, San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, California (Contract NO. N62473-11-D-2221, TO 0015, 0030 & 0031), 8/2015-12/2016. Archaeologist. HDR has been tasked with relocation, identification, and recordation of over 800 archaeological sites on San Clemente Island. Task also includes records review and analysis. Responsibilities include field surveys, GIS data collection and management, records and map development. Value: $398,896. 1 MARGARET DISS Metrolink, Archaeological/Architectural Survey, CTO 61, Ventura County, 07/2015. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Phase II Bridge evaluation for CEQA significance. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, and technical report development. Value: $10,000 (cultural survey only). Metrolink, Archaeological/Architectural Survey, CTO 62, Los Angeles County, 6/2015. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Phase II Bridge evaluation for CEQA significance. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, and technical report development. Value: $10,000 (cultural survey only). Metrolink, Archaeological/Architectural Survey Laguna Niguel to San Juan Capistrano Passing Siding Project, Orange County, 2015. Director of Fieldwork. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Responsibilities included field preparation, direction of fieldwork, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, and cultural addendum report development. Value: $65,000 (cultural survey only). Orange County Transportation Agency, Archaeological/Architectural Survey, San Juan Capistrano Del Obispo Crossing, Orange County, 2015. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Architectural survey to determine constraints within NRHR Historic District. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, and technical constraints development. Value: $20,000 (cultural survey only). U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Archaeological Survey, 1-8 Check Point, San Diego County, 2015. Sr. Archaeologist. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Responsibilities included archaeological survey, data analysis, and technical report development. Value: $10,000 (cultural survey only). NAVFAC SW, Archaeological Monitoring to Support the Ysidora Basin Mitigation Project, MCB Camp Pendleton San Diego County, California (TO 0022), 12/2014-02/2015. Cultural Monitor. HDR provided monitoring and field support. Ms. Diss is responsible for monitoring compliance and Native American relations. Value: $44,000 HDR Project Number 190182- 002. Ca!trans/City of Rancho Santa Margarita, Archaeological/Architectural SMP Bridge Hinge Replacement, Orange County, 2015. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Phase II Bridge evaluation for CEQA significance. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, and HPSR/ASR technical report. Value: $10,000 (cultural survey portion only). 2 MARGARET DISS Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Archaeological Survey, La Sierra, Riverside County, 6/2015-11/2015. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, technical report development, AB 52 coordination. Value: $10,000 (cultural survey only). NAVFAC SW, Archaeological Monitoring to Support the P-1048 Project (Upgrades to Electrical Systems and Associated Facilities), MCB Camp Pendleton San Diego County, California (Contract NO. N62473-11-D- 2221, TO 0009 & N62470-09-D-2003, TO FZN3), 2012-2015. Cultural Monitor. HDR provided monitoring and field support. HDR provided monitoring and field support. Ms. Diss is responsible for monitoring compliance and Native American relations. Value: $1,231,452. City of Los Angeles (Bureau of Engineering), Cultural Resources Monitoring, LA Pavement Sidewalk Replacement, Los Angeles County, CA, 8/2015. Cultural Project Manager and co -monitor. HDR EOC is providing cultural monitoring for the El Pueblo portion of the project. Ms. Diss is responsible for monitoring compliance, daily cultural project management duties, and report development. HDR Project Number 43-249660. BHATE, Archaeological Site Recordation and Testing, Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), Lompoc, Santa Barbara County, California, Contract NOs. TO 4.7.3 (Testing) and TO 4.7.4 (Site Assessment), 11/2015-Ongoing. Co -field Manager (Site Assessment Portion). HDR has been tasked with relocation and assessment of over 100 archaeological sites, as well as the recordation of 10 sites and the testing of 25 separate sites on VAFB. Task 4.7.4 includes a site impact assessment analysis as per Section 106 of NEPA. Responsibilities include field surveys, GIS data collection and management, I -Form macro development for site forms, site records, map development, and assistance in technical report development. Value: $450,000. HDR Project Numbers: 227- 243024 & 227-243021. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Archaeological Survey, La Sierra, Riverside County, 12/2015-2/2016. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, technical report development, AB 52 coordination. Value: $10,000 (cultural survey only). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Archaeological Survey, Brown Field, San Diego County, 12/2015. Cultural Project Manager/ Field Crew Chief. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Responsibilities included cultural project management, archaeological survey, viewshed data analysis, and responsible for technical report. HDR Project Number: 227-267304. Metrolink, Archaeological Survey, CTO-9, Riverside County, 12/2015- 03/2016. Cultural Project Manager. Phase I pre -construction survey to determine impacts to known archaeological sites and to determine if new archaeological sites are present within the APE. Responsibilities included NAHC coordination, archaeological and architectural survey, data analysis, technical report development, AB 52 coordination 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK B Consultation Results H�2 hdrinc.com July 31, 2015 Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento_ CA 95691 Reference: [:ultural Resourres Study, Metrolink 1.a Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Sacred Lands File Search Request Dear N:1HC, I would like to request a review of the Sacred Lands Tiles for the Cultural Resources Study for the Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Riverside, California. The portion of the projc�:t requiring a Sacred ].ands 1^ilo search is shown below and lies within the Section 24. Township 3 South, Range 6 West of the Riverside 6itest USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. Generally, the project includes constriction of a parking lot expansion that will include 513 additional peaking spaces, 6 bus bays and a new driveway access on Indiana Avenue_ Construction will include grading, AC and PCC pavement, pavement striping, curb and gutter, concrete planter curbs, wrought iron fence, landscaping and irrigation, marquee_ lighting, storm drain facilities, and a small wood framed storage building. 'Ilse proposed project covers 4.9 acres. Please indicate if there are any known sites or areas of concern in the vicinity of this project and provide a list of appropriate Native American contacts. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Results can be faxed to (S58) 712-S333 or entailed directly to Margaret Digs at Ma rgaret.Dissfandrinr.rom. If there are any questions regarding the information provided in this letter or if additional vitbrmation is needed. please contact me at the H1)1? San ]Diego office (858) 712-8277. Sincerely, AfebTritzt 444 Margaret ❑iss Staff ;Archaeologist 8690 Bathos Avenue Suite 200. San Diego. GA 02123 T 858.712.Noo F 858.712.8393 hdrinacom V "14 •1.4 • / 0 APE 1-1 1/2 mile Records Search Radius 1,250 2,533 Meters 0 250 5o1) 1.000 ;m oaw . Lambert Camernxp cone Stee {lane CaIgna m VI FPS O40B feet North Amen in Datum or 1983 Sourom VSG4 FaRI. WuN Sawa Map 02E09 ESRI 5,000 Feet IV 1:24,000 Rtuerag* West. CA i15QS 7.5 minute Quadrangle E u 1 :fi Map 1. Red rectangle indicates APE. Blue circle is a half mile radius. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200. San Diego, CA 92123 T 858.712.8400 F 858.712 8333 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Goy.s.a r NATIVE AMEFIICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd. ROOM 100 West SACRAMENTO, CA 95891 (918) 373.3710 Fex (916) 373-5471 August 25, 2015 Margaret Dias Staff Archaeologist HDR 8890 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Sent by Email: margaret.diss@hdrinc.com Number of Pages: 5 RE: Cultural Resources Study, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Project Lot Expansion, City and County of Riverside Dear Ms. Diss: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed for your project area with negative results, based on the USGS quadrangle information you provided. Please note that the absence of specific site information in the Sacred Lands File does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources in any APE. Other sources of cultural resources information should be contacted regarding known and recorded sites. A Native American tribe or individual may in fact Please contact all of the people on the attached list. The list should provide a starting place to locate areas of potential adverse impact within the APE. I suggest you contact all of those listed, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those on the list, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the NAHC requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any of these individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: rw_nahc@pacbeil.net. Sincerely, Rob Wood Associate Governmental Program Analyst _1 rlu t Sa•�•c1�e zr � 604 c ra`'bt11 r Native American Contact List Riverside County August 25, 2015 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 3 Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla Indio CA 92203 (760)342-2593 (760) 347-7880 Fax Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians 7 Ray Chapparosa, Chairman f P.O. Box 189 Warner Springs , CA c92086 Los_coyotes@ymail.com (760) 782-2701 Fax 1 Paia Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, PhD, THPO PM$ 50, 35005 Paia-TerneCtda Rd. Pala , CA 92059 sgaughen@palatribe.com (760) 891-3515 (760)742-3189 Fax G� Pauma & Yuima Reservation Randall Majel, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma Valley . CA 92061 (760) 742-1289 ext 317 C.jr,rti 5 btu e, 5 -1* J Cahuiiia Lifson° Cupeno (750) 742-3422 Fax J Pechanga Band of Mission Indians 3 • Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Manager P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula . GA 92593 pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov (951)770-8100 (951)506-9491 Fax s Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Joseph Hamilton, Chairman P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 admin@ ramonatribe.com (951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 Fax 2�� Rincon Band of Mission Indians Jim McPherson, Tribal Historic Pres. Officer 1 West Tribal Road Luiseno Valley Center , CA 92082 vwhipple@rincontribe.org (760) 297-2635 (760)297-2639 Fax San Manuel Hand of Mission Indians Lynn Valbuena, Chairwoman 26569 Community Center Highland . CA 92346 (909) 864-8933 (909) 864-3370 Fax Serrano S ("1 "tM \zactir— v'14 D „1 • 661) Soboba Band of Mission Indians S crRosemary Morillo, Chairperson; Attn: Carrie Garcia P.O. Box 487 Luisena San Jacinto CA 92581 Cahuilla carrieg Osoboba-nsn.gov (951) 654-2785 (951) 654-4198 Fax Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians V Mary RResvaloao, Chairperson P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274 mresvaloso@ tvrresmartinez. (760)397-0300 (760 ) 397-8146 Fax Cahuilla This tiet is current only as of the date of this documenL Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibuity as defined in Section T050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.34 of the Public Resources Code and Section S497.98 of the Public Resources Code. This fiat is only applicable for contacting {sari Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Cultural Resources Study, Metrolintt La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Riverside. Native American Contact List Riverside County August 25, 2015 �6 Los Coyotes Sand of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians • 7I Environmental Director Z6 P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla Warner Springs , CA 92086 (760) 782-0712 (760) 782-2730 Fax • Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 7 L Manuel Hamilton, Vice Chairperson P.O. Box 391670 Anza , CA 92539 admin@ramonatribe.com (951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 Fax S Cahuilla • Ramona Band of Mission Indians e"�� John Gomez, Environmental Coordinator P.O. Box 391670 Anza , CA 92539 Jgomez@ramonatribe.com (951) 763-4105 Cahuilla (951) 763-4325 Fax • San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 2`1 Tribal Council 1889 Sunset Drive Vista , CA 92081 cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org \-kot/ `(760) 724-8505 7(vr��'" (760) 724-2172 Fax Y I) 7� C+'tt Luiseno Caro ► • San Luis Rey Sand o fission Indians 2r Cultural Department 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista , CA 92081 Cupeno cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org (760) 724-8505 .SCR yyv , of abovQ-- S (760)724-2172 Fax This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Santa Rosa Hand of Mission Indians S Terry Hughes, Tribal Administrator P.O. Box 609 Cahuilla Hemet , CA 92546 tkentucky@aol.com (951)658-5311 (951)658-6733 Fax • Kupa Cultural Center (Pala Band) l 9 Shasta Gaughen, Assistant Director PMB 50, 35008 Pala -Temecula Rd. Luiseno Pala , CA 92059 sgaughen@palatribe.com (760)891-3515 (760)742-4543 Fax • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 1-6 Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla Palm Springs , CA 92262 ifreogoz@aguacaliente-nsn.gov (760) 325-3400 (760) 325-0593 Fax + Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Rroad Cahuilla Banning , CA 92220 Serrano ti (951) 849-8807 le`Or^' (951) 755-5200 fr�t, n �� atnre'ny ba,v\i-1 c}d` (951) 922-8146 Fax S Peclianga Band of Mission Indians Mark Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Temecula , CA 92593 mgoodhart@ pechanga-ns n. (951) 770-6100 31 (951) 695-1778 Fax CD cona. Luiseno Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097,98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Cultural Resources Study, Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Riverside. Santa Rasa Band of Mission Indians i John Marcus, Chairman P.O. Sox 391820 Anza , CA 92539 (951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 Fax Native American Contact List Riverside County August 25, 2015 S Cahuilla Augustine Banc! of Cahuilla Mission Indians O Mary Ann Green, Chairperson P.O. Box 846 Cahuilla Coachella • CA 92236 (760) 398-4722iSi(ec•110( (760) 369-7161 Fax tivi c[ Sal ci+vcor i� Morongo Band of Mission Indians Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources Manager 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Banning . CA 92220 Serrano dtorres@ morongc-nsn.gov (951) 572-6084 Fax ILA San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Daniel McCarthy, M.S.., Director-CRM ept. 26569 Community Center Drive Serrano Highland = CA 92346 d mcca rtb yU san manuel-n sn .gav (909) 864-8933 Ext 3248 (909) 862-5152 Fax e Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilia Indians t� Matthew Krystai, Cultural Resources Manager P.O. Box 1160 Cahuilla Thermal , CA 92274 (760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 Fax �(aM Paurna Valley Band of Luiseno Indians Bennae Calac P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley . CA 92061 bennaecalacC aol_com (760)617-2872 (760) 742-3422 Fax • Pampa & Yuima I ATTN: EPA P.O. Box 369 Fauna Valley , CA 92061 ky mberli paters Q yahoo.com (760) 742-1289 (760) 742-3422 Fax { 'Rincon Band of Mission Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson 1 West Tribal Road Valley Center , CA 92082 bomazzetti g aol,com (760) 749-1051 Luiseno Luiseno Luiseno (760) 749-8941 Fax Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 1�j Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs 84-245 India Springs Parkway Cahuilla Indio , CA 92203 istap p O cabazo ni nd ians-ns n.gov (760) 342-2593 S (760) 347-7884 Fax Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians c-0 Tribal Administrator �] P.O. Box 189 Cahullla Warner Springs (760)782-0711 CA 92086 (760) 782-2701 Fax This iist Is current only as of the data of this document. Distribution of this !1st doss not ralicve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Publio PespurCe9 Cade and Section 5u97.88 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting 'Racal Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for rile proposed Culture! Resources Study, Metrollnk La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, R[verside. Native American Contact List Riverside County August 25, 2015 • William J. Pink S -4 48310 Pechanga Road Luiseno Temecula . CA 92592 wjpink@hotmall.com (909) 936-1216 Prefers e-mail contact + La Jolla Band of Mission Indians Lavonne Peck, Chairwomen 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley CA 92064 Rob. roy@ lajolfa-nsn.gov (760) 742-3771 (760) 742-1704 Fax 4Serrano Nation of Mission Indians �Goldie Walker, Chairwoman P.O. Box 343 Patton CA 92369 5 Luiseno (909)528-9027 (909) 528-9032 +o rv05' Zadt :tt1,1('y Serrario * Pauma & Yuima Reservation Charles Devers, Cultural Committee P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley CA 92061 (760) 742-1289 (760)742-3422 Fax *Cahuilla Band of Indians Luther Salgado, Chairperson P.O. Box 391760 Anza , CA 92539 Chairman@cahullla.net (760) 763-5549 (760) 763-2631Tribal EPA 3 Luiseno "Ckei s teVerStr .ent4-: 317 DOJO- S love►' troy � Cahuilla ! 0 • Pechanga Cultural Resources Department Anna Hoover, Cultural Analyst P.O. Box 2183 Luisefio Temecula , CA 92593 ahoover@ pechanga-nsn.gov (961)770-8104 (951) 694-0446 Fax .' Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians THPO "00 Ernest H. Siva Patricia Garcia, Tribal Historic Perservation Officer 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla Palm Springs CA 92264 ptuck@aguacaliente-nsn.gov (760) 699-6907 (760) 699-6924 Fax 15.Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Karen Kupcha P.O. Box 849 Cahuilla Coachella CA 92236 (760) 398-4722 t- WC' Morongo Band of Mission Indians Tribal Eider 9570 Ms Canyon Road Serrano Banning , CA 92220 Cahuilla siva@dishmail.net (951) 849-4676 ,s • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians �f` Joseph Ontiveros. Cultural Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 Luiseno San Jacinto CA 92581 Cahuilla jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov (951)663-5279 (951) 664-5544, ext 4137 (951) 654-4198 Fax . VaNAtze This Ilst is current Only as of the date of this document. Cilstrtbutlon of lhls list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Neagh and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resouroes Code and Section 5097.99 o1 the Public Resources Code. This list Is only appilealste for conlacting local histive Americans with regard to Cultural resources for the proposed Cultural Resources Study, Metrdllnit Ls Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Riverside. qi Pala Band of Mission Indians Robert H. Smith, Chairperson PrtAB 50, 35008 Pala -Temecula Ad. Pala , CA 92059 dhuss @ palatribe.com (760) 891-3500 Native American Contact List Riverside County August25, 2045 Luiseno Cupeno (760) 742-3189 Fax /Z Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilia Indians Gary Resvaloso P.O. Box 1160 Cahuilia Thermal , GA 92274 gresvaloso @torresmartinez- (760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 Fax k This list Is current only es of the data of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined lit Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Cade, Section 509/.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public R®sources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local. Native An tericans With regard to ctiattral resources for the proposed Cultural Resources Study, Metrolink La Sierra Parking LdtExpansion, Rfverside. From: Rob Wood To: piss. filargamt Subject: Re: Question on a Sacred Lands file search trate: Moneay, August 31, 2615 10:16:27 AM I I i klargaret. While in the past we were not including Ciabrielenn tribes in the City of Riverside. based on the information we had at the time. recently we as part ofourAB 52 efforts, we have asked tribes for maps of their traditional u-Ibal territories_ I'he map we received I'nom the tiabrielena Band of' Mission Indians - Kit Nation places the City of Riverside directly on their border. That being the ease we wilt be including the Gabrielenu tribes on lists for the City of Riverside and they should have been included in the list I sent you. see below. Thank you for bringing the oversight to may attention. Sincerely , Rob Wood Native American Heritage Commission {916I373-3711 Gabrieheno Rand of Mission Indians- Kith Nation Andrew Salas. C:halrpersOn 1'.0. riot 391 Covina. CA 91723 gabrielcnaindians4yahoo.00m (626)926-4131 Gabrielcnof Fong% a San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony iviorales. Chairperson P.O. Rox 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 8ttri hnl co a ne i! Oat d .cttm (626I 483-3564 - Crll Cabriciinn IrntgvaTribe I.inda Candelaria, Co -Chairperson 1999 Avenue ofth eStnrs. Suite 1100 Los Angeles. CA 90067 026) 676-1 18S -Cell Gabrielinorfongva Nation Sant Dunlap, Cultural Resources director P.O. kits 86908 I A1S Angeles, CA 90086 s nmdunlapgearth I ink ,nes 009) 267-9351 On Aug28. 2015, at 3:55 ISM. Diss, Margaret wrote: = <I,a Sierra NA I IC Response Letter,polz- F�2 hdrine.aom August 7, 2015 Riverside Historical Society P. O, Box 2+16 Riverside, CA 92502 rive rs i deh istoricalso c ictyP on ai l _ com Re: Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project Bear Riverside Historical Society; IIDR is preparing cultural resource documents for the above refereneod project in the city of Riverside in Riverside County. The Riverside County TrauHportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing IA Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. 'Me La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project would occur on the RCfC-owned adjacent vacant lot, east of the. existing l,a Sierra Metrolink Station and parking area. As depicted in Figure 1, the project site is located along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue at I0901 Indiana Avenue in the City of Riverside, California. The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Metrolink train tracks and State Route 91 (SR-91 ), to the east by a bowling alley, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing 1,a Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. The project°s area ❑f potential effect (API) covers approximately 4.9 -acres in the open dirt lot. El records search of the project identified no historic features or prehistoric sites documented to be within the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effect (APE),and seven historic and arehaeoiogical sites within a half mile of the :1Y1;. No historic or prehistoric resources will be affected by this project as they arc not within the APIs, 1 am requesting any information you may have regarding historic sites, important historical information to take note of; or any cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project APE and seeking any concerns you may have with the proposed project, i can be reached by mail or fax according to the information listed below. Additionally I can be reached by email at: Margaret.Diss@hdrinc.cont. Respectfully submitted, .tetAit (644 Margaret Diss Staff Archaeologist 13600 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego. CA 92123 T W8.712.8400 F a5$.712.a333 N 2Q8 dOd 800 p fee' Meters 50 100 200 1:5 000 Projection: Lard/art Gonfonne. Cons State Plan9 Cat'rforno VI PIPS O4CE Itrtt Nort+ American Datum of 1 BB3 Sousse of aerial; ESRI Figure 1. Yrajcci Location. hd rinc.cam Figure 2. Project APE with the RR tracks on the left. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suile 200, San Diego. CA 92123 T 858.712.8409 F 858.712.$333 La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Native American Correspondence Tribal Affiliation Individual ntacte Method of Contact Date of • esponse Receive California Native Rob Wood Email: 7/31/2015 Yes (8/25/2015): No known sacred sites within the American Heritage 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite nahc@nahc.ca.gov project area. Recommends contacting local tribal Commission 100, West Sacramento, CA entities. Second list sent 8/31/15 because the Gabrieleno tribes were mistakenly left of the list. 95691 Cahuilla Doug Welmas, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairperson • Phone 9/25/2015 Spoke with Assistant Nancy and left a message. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Cahuilla Ray Chapparosa, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. No phone number listed. Chairman, Los Coyotes Band of Mission • Email 9/25/2015 Email returned as undeliverable. Contact info requested from NAHC (Rob Wood). Indians Cahuilla Joseph Hamilton, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairman, Ramona • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Cahuilla Mary Resvaloso • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Response by Voicemail 9/28/15 and letter 10/5/15: (Blardo), Chairperson, Torres -Martinez Desert • Phone 9/25/2015 No comment regarding project: defers to Pechanga or San Manuel. Cahuilla Indians Cahuilla John Marcus, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairman, Santa Rosa • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Band of Mission Indians Cahuilla Mary Ann Green, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Response by letter 11/9/15. Unaware of Resources Chairperson, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians • Phone 9/25/2015 affected by this project. Recommends a NAM from a tribe in the immediate vicinity to monitor construction activities. Contact her if we find any cultural resources during the project. Cahuilla Matthew Krystal, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Cultural Resources • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Manager, Torres - Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Cahuilla Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs, Cabazon Band of • Letter 9/2/2015 Yes (9/8/15) Mrs. Stapp says that the tribe "has no specific archival information on the site indicating that it may be a sacred/religious site or other site of Mission Indians Native American traditional cultural value." The APE is outside the tribe's traditional boundaries. Cahuilla Tribal Administrator, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Phone rang...no message machine & no answer. Los Coyotes Band of • Phone 9/25/2015 Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians Cahuilla Environmental Director, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Left voicemail message. Los Coyotes Band of • Phone 9/25/2015 Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians Cahuilla Manuel Hamilton, Vice • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Message machine says that the party is not available Chairperson, Ramona • Phone 9/25/2015 to leave a message. Band of Cahuilla Indians Cahuilla John Gomez, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Environmental • Phone 9/29/2015 Left voicemail message. Coordinator, Ramona Band of Mission Indians Cahuilla Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson, Agua • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response from Mr Grubbe, however on 9/28/15 an email from Katie Eskew, archaeologist for ACBCI Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) THPO (see below) stated "project not within tribal use area." ACBCI has no concerns with the project. Cahuilla Patricia Garcia, THPO, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 9/28/15 via email from Katie Eskew, archaeologist for ACBCI THPO. Project not within tribal use area. ACBCI has no concerns with the project. (ACBCI) Cahuilla Karen Kupcha, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians • Phone 9/29/2015 Left voicemail message with David Saldovar, who is the contact for cultural issues according to the secretary of Mrs. Kupcha. Cahuilla Luther Salgado, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairperson, Chauilla • Phone 9/29/2015 No voicemail option for Mr. Salgado or the Cahuilla Band of Mission Band EPA office. Indians Cahuilla Gary Resvaloso, Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians • Letter 9/2/2015 See response from Mary Resvaloso above: Torres - Martinez Desert Cahuilla have no comment regarding project: they defer to Pechanga or San Manuel. Cahuilla, Serrano Denisa Torres, Cultural • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 CRM contact is now Raymond Huauate. APE is Resources Manager, Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Email 9/25/2015 outside reservation boundaries but in "traditional use" area. Mr. Huauate is not aware of any cultural resources on property but wants to be contacted in the case that cultural artifacts or human remains are discovered. Cahuilla, Serrano Robert Martin, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 9/29/15 Voicemail message left by Franklin Dancy Chairperson, Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Phone 9/29/2015 (Planning Director). Says that letter is currently being reviewed by the historic preservation office and they will respond within standard timeframe. Gabrielino Linda Candelaria, Co- • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairperson • Phone 9/29/2015 Left voicemail message. Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Gabrielino Andrew Salas, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Via phone 9/29/15 Mr. Salas wants to let us know Chairperson • Phone 9/29/2015 what village sites he is aware of in the Gabrieleno Band of • Email 9/29/2015 area...requested a map and a new letter be sent to Mission Indians • Email 9/30/2015 his email. Mr. Salas stated that the area is part of a traditional trading area and provided map of village sites in the area (they did not appear to be within the APE). Mr. Salas says that "because of sensitivity and the location area our tribe would like to request one of our tribal Monitors be on site during any and all ground disturbances." Gabrielino Tongva Anthony Morales, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Mr. Morales recommends spot checks by an Chairperson Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Phone 9/29/2015 archaeologist during ground disturbance. He strongly recommends that a native American monitor be called in the case of an inadvertent discoveries due to the fact the RR may represent a traditional native pathway with related campsites. Gabrielino Tongva Sam Dunlap, Cultural • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Email Returned as undeliverable: Resources Director • Phone 9/29/2015 samdunlap@earthlink.net Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Left Phone Message 9/29/15 Luiseno Randall Majel, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairperson Pauma & Yuima • Phone 9/25/2015 Phone number listed is for Chris Devers, who responded below. Reservation Luiseno Paul Macarro, Cultural • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Resources Manager, Pechanga Band of • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Mission Indians Luiseno Jim McPherson, Tribal Historic Pres. Officer, Rincon Band of • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Yes (9/10/15) Project is not within Rincon's historic boundaries. Defers to Pechanga or Soboba. Mission Indians Luiseno Bennae Calac, Pauma • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Valley Band of Luiseno • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Indians Luiseno Pauma &Yuima • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. ATTN: EPA • Phone 9/25/2015 No answer by Phone. (Kimberli Peters) Luiseno Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson, Rincon Band of Mission Indians • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Jim McPherson of the Rincon Cultural Resources Department (see above) responded by mail, stating that the project is not within Rincon's historic boundaries and they have no additional information. Luiseno Tribal Council, San Luis • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Contact: Cami. Returned call 9/30/15 and said that Rey Band of Mission Indians • Phone 9/29/2015 the project is outside their tribal range (Same phone number as Cultural Department). Luiseno Cultural Department, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Contact: Cami. Returned call 9/30/15 and said that San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians • Phone 9/29/2015 the project is outside their tribal range (Same phone number as Tribal Council). Luiseno Mark Macarro, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairperson, Pechanga Band of Mission • Phone 9/29/2015 Left voicemail message with executive asst. Phone number provided by NAHC went to purchasing dept. Indians Luiseno William J. Pink • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Email with attached letter sent. Prefers email. (Pechanga?) • Email 9/25/2015 Luiseno Lavonne Peck, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairwoman, La Jolla Band of Mission • Phone 9/29/2015 Left voicemail message with Thomas Rodriguez...the new Chairperson. Indians Luiseno Charles Devers, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Via email (9/14/15) Mr. Devers recommended Cultural Committee, • Phone 9/29/15 Native American monitoring. Follow up email sent 9- Pauma & Yuima Reservation • Phone 10/2/15 14-15 and follow up voicemail on 9-29-15 to clarify his recommendations...no response. LM again 10/2/15. Luiseno Anna Hoover, Cultural • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Response by email 10/16/15. Says that the "project Analyst, Pechanga • Phone 9/29/2015 area is not within reservation lands but is within Cultural Resources Department • Email 9/29/2015 ancestral territory." Wants to be sent all reports and grading plans, wants archaeological and native American monitoring, and wants to consult with RCTC on the project in the future. Luiseno, Cahuilla Rosemary Morillo, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairperson, Soboba • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Band of Mission Indians Luiseno, Cahuilla Joseph Ontiveros, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 (10/1/15) Soboba requests: to be kept informed Cultural Resources • Phone 9/29/2015 regarding the progress of this project, that a NAM Dept., Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians • Email 9/29/2015 be present during Phase I archaeological field survey/testing, and that a NAM from Soboba be present during any ground disturbing activities during construction. Luiseno, Cupeno Shasta Gaughen, Pala Band of Mission • Letter 9/2/2015 Listed twice by the NAHC. Letter response received 9-8-15. Project beyond boundaries of territory and Indians, PhD, THPO/ Kupa Cultural Center Pala has no objections to project. This letter constitutes Robert Smith's response as well. Luiseno, Cupeno Robert H. Smith, Chairperson, Pala band of Mission Indians • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Yes, see above response from Shasta Gaughen. Project beyond boundaries of territory and Pala has no objections to project. Serrano Lynn Valbuena, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Chairwoman, San • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Manuel Band of Mission Indians Serrano Daniel McCarthy, CRM • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Dept. Director, San • Phone 9/25/2015 Left voicemail message. Manuel Band of Mission Indians Serrano Goldie Walker, • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 Spoke to Mrs. Walker on 9/29/15. She stated that Chairwoman, Serrano • Phone 9/29/2015 she wants to be contacted via her P.O. Box if any Nation of Mission Indians Native American cultural items are found during ground disturbance. Serrano, Cahuilla Ernest Siva, Morongo • USPS Letter 9/2/2015 No response to letter. Band of Mission • Phone 9/29/2015 Left voicemail message. Indians Tribal Elder THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK c DPR Forms THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX D - AB 52 DOCUMENTATION hdrinc.com Date: October 16, 2015 To: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) From: HDR Re: La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52) Memo Assembly Bill No. 52 Assembly Bill No. 52, passed on September 25, 2014, establishes a new category of resources in the California Environmental Quality Act called "Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR)" that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. AB 52 states that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 declares that California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area may have expertise concerning their TCRs, therefore it establishes a consultation process with all of California's Native American Tribes (including both federally and non -federally recognized tribes) in order to avoid or mitigate effects to TCRs. AB 52 requirements apply to all projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP), a Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was issued on or after July 1, 2015. Background Information from Initial SB 18 Consultation Under AB 52, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) assists the lead agency in identifying the California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The NAHC's list of tribes affiliated with the project area was also used in the initial (SB 18) consultation with the tribes. In the process of this initial consultation with forty six individuals representing twenty three different bands, nine individuals stated the La Sierra Project is outside their tribal territory, effectively relinquishing interest in AB 52 consultation. During initial consultation, five individuals indicated the La Sierra project APE is within their tribal boundary and/or traditional cultural use area. One of these individuals stated the project is within their band's territory, but not within the band's historic boundaries and therefore defer to the bands closer to the project area. Lead Agency Requirements Negative Declarations and EIRs cannot be adopted or certified without first concluding the AB 52 tribal consultation process. Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92123-1502 (858)712-8400 hdrinc.com culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which will be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The lead agency is required to begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a California Native American tribe's request for consultation. As a part of the consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1, the parties may propose mitigation measures capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource. If the California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding alternatives to the project, recommends mitigation measures, or identifies significant effects, the consultation shall include those topics. The consultation may include discussion concerning the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project's impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and, if necessary, project alternatives or the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the California Native American tribe may recommended to the lead agency. Mitigation measures agreed upon during consultation must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document. AB 52 also identifies mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation. Recommended measures include: (1) preservation in place (planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria), (2) protecting the traditional use, cultural character, and/ or confidentiality of the resource, (3) permanent conservation easements with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places, (4) protecting the resource. Recommendations At this juncture, only one has contacted the RCTC in order to be added to the AB-52 consultation list, and therefore the only band the RCTC must consult with to be compliant with the AB-52 legislation. Due to the fact the implementation of the AB 52 legislation is a new process for all parties, it may be necessary to assist some bands to meet the procedural duties in order to be involved in AB 52 consultation until the process becomes more routine. For this reason, HDR recommends the RCTC also contact the three other bands that indicated the project was within their tribal territory (or historic boundary). Should the RCTC require assistance in writing the initial notification letter to the tribal bands after the Mitigated Negative Declaration is issued for La Sierra, and/or consulting with the tribes for the purpose of fulfilling AB 52 regulations, the HDR cultural resources team would be pleased to provide assistance. While AB 52 consultation must be conducted on a governmental agency to tribal governmental level, HDR can provide support to RCTC to be sure RCTC's legal obligations regarding AB 52 are fulfilled appropriately. Our assistance can come in the form of a letter template sent to the tribal bands on your letterhead; meeting with you to better explain the process; and/or we can be present during the consultation process as your consultant. 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92123-1502 (858)712-8400 hdrinc.com Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Respectfully Submitted, Margaret Diss Archaeologist HDR,EOC 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92123-1502 (858)712-8400 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA 92501 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Riverside County Transportation Commission November 5, 2015 Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Re: Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Consultation Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subds. (b), (d) and (e) for the La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project, City of Riverside, Riverside County, CA. Dear Mr. Salas: In July 2015, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (Tribe) submitted a letter to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) in accordance with AB 52 requesting notification and information regarding the Commission projects subject to CEQA within the Tribe's identified traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area. As such, this letter formally notifies the Tribe of the Commission's intent to undertake such a project. The Commission proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station (10901 Indiana Avenue, Riverside). The Commission is the CEQA Lead Agency. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is anticipated. As depicted in attached Figure 1, the project site is an adjacent 4.69 acre vacant lot along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue between a bowling alley parking lot and the existing BNSF railroad tracks. The proposed parking lot expansion would include 513 additional parking spaces, 6 bus bays, and a new driveway access off Indiana Avenue. Construction activities would include site grading, paving and striping, curb and gutter work, construction of concrete planter curbs and a wrought iron fence, landscaping and irrigation, construction of a LED marquee, lighting, storm drain facilities, a small wood —framed storage building, an information kiosk, and a restroom facility for use by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and site security personnel. Pursuant to the AB 52, Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation has 30 days from the receipt of this notice to request consultation regarding the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project. If you have any questions, please contact Steven Keel at (951) 787-7961 or skeel@bec-riv.org. Sincerely, 7 Anne Mayer vExecutive Dire or Upland ` .CucarnOnga- QntariO L. Gnash Champagne 7VO1CO Carona G: apelarlr En ncla Rochester l Il` 1 Pepper. Curner Fontana SIDerlerr+Nr BlOonprrgron Gres 'MO! BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Se+nny5laAC 3 Errrt+s Crnlarrd Glen. ��e. n!•- IAvn1i,:--�• Rubidon ePedrey • Mira Lorna i SMTr, NOrn[ Gardens EY Cairo to. Arliiigron Riverside P.ich.ippri Casa Prenda afonca. Ar4ngron Sr ocation Leke alhews G.1GI5 Producoon WrojectsVtCTC 2021591LaSierro Mebolnk 2597251Map_Docslrnr dlRegional mxd-aburvall-9!7/2015 Regional Location FIGURE 1 Waodcresr a: = afroderc klelghra , Sax Spr++i1js A7r;ald,Helprgs Lake EIS more West March March RFI3 Project Location Map FIGURE 2 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA 92501 Moiling Address: P O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 {951 } 787-7141 - Fox (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc,org �lam� Riverside County Transportation Commission December 14, 2015 Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kith Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Subject: AB52 Consultation Conclusion Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, Subdivisions (b), (d), and (e) for Metrolink La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project, City of Riverside, Riverside County, CA Dear Mr. Salas: Thank you for meeting with us on December 2, 2015, regarding AB52 consultation on the Metrolink La Sierra parking lot expansion project. During our field visit to the project area you expressed concern the grading of the soil in the southern portion of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) may disturb and/or unearth cultural artifacts currently buried under the alignment of the historic road or the soil built up around the road. Specifically, we understand you are concerned the APE is in the general vicinity of village sites and may be in the vicinity of a trade route, due to the proximity of the current railroad to the APE. Thank you for providing a general graphic depiction of Gabrieleno village sites in the Southern Riverside area on September 30, 2015, as well as a map of the Native American trade routes in the western half of the United States on December 3, 2015. In light of your concerns regarding the sensitivity of the area, we concur with your request for the presence of a Native American monitor during the three planned days of grading/excavation activities scheduled at the site. We will be contacting you once the construction schedule has been determined so your monitor may be present during the grading activities to aid in the identification and/or assertion of significance of any subsurface cultural resources or to aid in the avoidance of any sensitive area, should such an area be discovered. This letter constitutes a formal notification of the completion of AB52 consultation under Section 21080.3.2, subdivision (b) of the Public Resources Code. Please contact Steven Keel at (951) 787-7951 or skeel@bec-riv.org, if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, )7 Ann�eayer Executive Direct By USPS and e-mail: gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com GAMIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZN NATION historically known as The `jan Gabriel band of Mission Indians recognized by the `jtate of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin Metrolink La Sierra Parking lot expansion project Dear Anne Mayer, December 17, 2015 Our Tribe has received your response letter regarding the above project location. We thank you for your respectful consideration of Tribal Monitoring during grading / excavation activities . We will await your Notification once the Construction schedule has been determined. Again we thank you for acknowledging our Concerns. With respect, Andrew Salas, Chairman cell (626)926-4131 Andrew Sales, Chairman Albert Perez, treasurer I Nadine Salas, Vice -Chairman Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders PO box 595 Covina, CA 91725 www.gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com APPENDIX E - PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT cogstone PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY - HISTORY PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Patrick O'Neill, Associate Vice President HDR Engineering, Inc. 3230 El Camino Real Ste. 200, Irvine, CA 92602 On behalf of: Riverside County Transportation Commission Author: Kim Scott, Principal Paleontologist Principal Investigator: Sherri Gust Qualified Principal Paleontologist October 2015 Project Number: 2537-02 Type of Study: Paleontological Resources Technical report Sites: None within the project boundaries, 5 near to the project USGS Quadrangle: Riverside West 7.5' Area: 4.69 acres Key Words: Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvial fans, PFYC 2, PFYC 3a 1518 West Taft Avenue Field Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Oakland Toll free 888-333-3212 Office (714) 974-8300 Federal Certifications 8(a), SDB, 8(m) WOSB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1 PROJECT PERSONNEL 6 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 6 STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 6 California Environmental Quality Act 6 PRC Section 5097.5 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 7 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 8 GEOLOGICAL SETTING 8 STRATIGRAPHY 9 Old Alluvial Fan 9 Young Alluvial Fan 9 RECORD SEARCHES 11 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11 PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 REFERENCES CITED 15 APPENDIX A: QUALIFICATIONS 17 APPENDIX B: SBCM RECORDS SEARCH 22 APPENDIX C: SENSITIVITY RANKING CRITERIA 27 Cogstone ii La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY 3 FIGURE 2. PROJECT AREA 4 FIGURE 3. PROJECT DESIGN 5 FIGURE 4. PROJECT GEOLOGY 10 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 1 TABLE 2. FOSSILS RECOVERED NEAR THE PROJECT STUDY AREA 12 TABLE 3. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RANKINGS 14 LIST OF ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF Burlington North Santa Fe Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Cogstone Cogstone Resource Management Inc. LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County PBDB Paleobiology Database PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification Project La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project PRC Public Resources Code RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission RTA Riverside Transit Agency RV University of California at Riverside Vertebrate Paleontology collection SBCM San Bernardino County Museum SR-91 State Route 91 UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology UCR University of California, Riverside USGS United States Geological Survey WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program Cogstone iii La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to determine the potential effects on paleontological resources within the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project (project) in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. Based on information provided by RCTC, the maximum depth of excavations will be 6 feet in the 4.69 acre site. The excavation is in the cut area of the lot closest to Indiana Avenue and will be used to fill area of the lot closer to the railroad tracks. The project site is mapped as Holocene to late Pleistocene (modern to—500,000 years old), Quaternary alluvial fans. A record search of the project area and a one mile radius was requested from the San Bernardino County Museum. Online records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database and the Paleobiology Database were searched for fossils as well as print sources. As fossils are typically found more than 10 feet deep in the valley areas of California, the project area and a ten -mile radius were searched for resources. Although there were no records of fossils from within the proposed boundaries or within one mile of the boundary, five fossil localities have been recovered from the Quaternary older alluvium or Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits within a ten -mile radius. Extinct animals recovered from the localities include ground sloth, mammoth, mastodon, camel, bison, and horse. Sediments similar to those found within the project have also produced dire wolves, American lions, sabre- toothed cats, and plant remains as well as other varieties of ground sloth, camels, bison, and horses in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Both the old and young alluvial fan deposits are ranked as low (PFYC 2) sensitivity at the surface and increasing to moderate and patchy sensitivity (PFYC 3a) by between 5 and 8 feet deep, respectively. Deeper impacts within the project will have a greater potential for fossils. It is possible that paleontological resources may be encountered during construction activities within the Holocene to Pleistocene alluvial fans. Based on the planned depth of cuts, no monitoring is recommended. If unanticipated fossils are unearthed during construction, work should be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find. Work may resume immediately a minimum of 50 feet away from the find. This procedure should be included in the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training provided to construction personnel. Cogstone iv La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF STUDY This purpose of this study was to determine the potential effects on paleontological resources within the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project (project) in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station. This study was requested by the RCTC to meet their responsibility as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION This project is located on the Riverside West 7 5 minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle in an unsectioned portion of Township 3S, Range 6W within the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The project site is located along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue at 10901 Indiana Avenue. On the north the project is bounded by the existing Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by the AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot (Figures 2, 3). Table 1 provides existing Riverside General Plan land use designations for the site and adjacent properties. Table 1: Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations Existing Land Use General Plan Designationl Project Site Vacant land Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) North BNSF and SR-91 Rail/Freeway South Single Family Residential (Riverwalk Vista development) Medium Density Residential (MDR) East AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes Commercial (C) West La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking lot Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) Notes: 1 Figure LU-10 Land Use Policy Map, City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Cogstone 1 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical The project site is currently a vacant field. Elevation within the project site ranges from 744 to 752 above mean sea level (AMSL). There is an existing mound of soil located on the southern- most portion of the site that would be utilized to bring the site's elevation to match the adjacent parking lot's elevation. The study area (Figure 2) includes the project site as well as the adjacent drive aisle of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. As identified in Figure 3, with the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Additional work/features include: • Site grading; • Asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping; • Curb and gutter; • Concrete planter curbs; • Wrought iron fencing; • Landscaping and irrigation; • LED marquee lighting; • Storm drain facilities; • Benches and trash receptacles; • Information kiosk; and, • Restroom facility for use by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and site security personnel Construction of the project is anticipated to take approximately 32 weeks total. Grading, asphalt and concrete placement will require 18 weeks of construction. The project site would require 29,746 cubic yards of fill, 30,479 cubic yards of cut and 733 cubic yards of export to bring the site elevation to the same level as the adjacent parking lots. Landscaping is proposed along Indiana Avenue frontage and within the parking lot. Concrete curb stops are proposed at the end of each row of parking spaces. Sidewalks would be provided for pedestrians walking to and from the proposed bus bays. A new driveway approach would be constructed at the northeastern most corner of the site and would wrap along the project site's eastern and northern boundary to connect to the proposed bus bays. Buses accessing the site would do so through one of two ingress points along Indiana Avenue and would exit the site via the to be signalized existing La Sierra Station/Indiana Avenue intersection. A wrought iron fence would be installed along the northern most boundary of the site to provide separation between the existing rail tracks and the proposed bus shelter areas; and the southernmost boundary along Indiana Avenue. Based on information provided by RCTC, the maximum depth for excavation will be 6 feet. The excavation is in the cut area of the lot closest to Indiana Avenue and will be used to fill area of 1 Import and export quantities of fill provided by RCTC in written correspondence dated August 5, 2015. Cogstone 2 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical the lot closer to the railroad tracks2. ' Holt Blvd Ontano �a V .i�iu, iVvrui irswri S I - dl=taws izw,_! _.. _ /J 7r Loma Jurupaja: Ju, tip .1 Ave Linda F MrBg,ar II Cvao-ECA-ea-w - or -.Ida Lr Cr \.11 11 1111s lgi7d . zq e z is E Riverside U� Edison Ave C hmo Airpo rt 71 I cogstone Limestone Nor Corona Wired* - — R oli SunrrysIope Vain Mira Qre,g Loma m 6 Limon ite Avo Hidden V alley Wildlife Area °n� lx ,6�:,, Riverside 9a a�S N Fr , z Grand Terrace c Hi grove— "L antral Ar' Avr Lake Math.ev;, 41 2 woodcrest �sja5co f� C. !Thews Dr `ran ra no„ Rd rl� Moreno V all ey arch LI eserve 89E1 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corpa,IRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esn China (Hong Kong). Esri (Thailand), TomTom La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project City of Riverside Riverside County, CA Project Site 0 2.5 5 Kilometers IIIIIIIII 0 2.5 5 Miles I l r i l l r i l 1:300,000 1 in = 5 miles Figure 1. Project vicinity 2 Telephone correspondence with Steve Keel, dated August 18, 2015. Cogstone 3 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical cogstone La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project City of Riverside Riverside County, CA Figure 2. Project area %4.. •.� o e Kama' �o oa . o ,491 3 RA 4.4114 Project Site 0 75 150 Feet Iliiliiil N 0 15 30 Meters 111111111 1:1,800 1 in = 150 ft 4 Figure 3. Project design La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical 5 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical PROJECT PERSONNEL Cogstone Resource Management Inc. (Cogstone) conducted the paleontological resources studies (Appendix A). • Sherri Gust served as the Qualified Principal Paleontologist for the Project and supervised all work. Gust has a M. S. in Anatomy (Evolutionary Morphology) from the University of Southern California, a B.S. in Anthropology from the University of California at Davis and over 35 years of experience in California. • Kim Scott served as the Principal Paleontologist for the project and wrote this report. Scott has a M. S. in Biology with an emphasis in paleontology from California State University, San Bernardino, a B.S. in Geology with an emphasis in paleontology from the University of California, Los Angeles, and over 20 years of experience in California paleontology and geology. • Dr. John Harris reviewed this report for quality control. He has a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Bristol (U.K.), an M.A. in Geology from the University of Texas, Austin, a B.S. (Hons) in Geology from the University of Leicester (U.K.). Dr. Harris has more than 45 years of experience in Cenozoic paleontology and specializes in terrestrial vertebrate species from Rancho la Brea California and Africa. ■ Andre Simmons prepared the GIS maps throughout this report. Simmons has a M.A. in Anthropology from California State University Fullerton, a GIS certification, and over six years of experience in California archaeology and paleontology. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS Paleontological resources are protected by state law. This protection covers all vertebrate fossils (animals with backbones) and any unique paleontological locality. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA declares that it is state policy to: "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. If 6 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical paleontological resources are identified as being within the proposed project study area, the sponsoring agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource. PRC SECTION 5097.5 No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The following policies provide direction for paleontological resources: OS 19.8 Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain biological, paleontological, or other scientific resources, a report shall be filed stating the extent and potential significance of the resources that may exist within the proposed development and appropriate measures through which the impacts of development may be mitigated. OS 19.9 This policy requires that when existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain paleontological resources, a paleontologist shall monitor site grading activities, with the authority to halt grading to collect uncovered paleontological resources, curate any resources collected with an appropriate repository, and file a report with the Planning Department documenting any paleontological resources that are found during the course of site grading. OS 19.10 Transmit significant development applications subject to CEQA to the San Bernardino County Museum for review, comment, and/or preparation of recommended conditions of approval with regard to paleontological resources. (http://www.rctlma. org/genplan/content/gp/chapter05.htm1#TOC2_7) Cogstone 7 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources. Fossils are considered to be significant if one or more of the following criteria apply: 1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct; 2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein; 3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas; 4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; 5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations. As so defined, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important (Scott and Springer, 2003; Scott et al., 2004). BACKGROUND GEOLOGICAL SETTING The proposed project site is situated in one of the most tectonically active regions of North America. To the north of the project, the San Andreas Fault Zone travels up Cajon Pass where it is the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. The Transverse Ranges are a result of these two plates grinding past each other and "catching" along the bend in the San Andreas. The project is located on the Pacific Plate which is composed of numerous blocks that can move independently. The Transverse Range Province are an east -west trending series of steep mountain ranges and valleys, oblique to the normal northwest trend of coastal California, hence the name "Transverse." The province extends offshore to include San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Cogstone 8 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical islands. Its eastern extension, the San Bernardino Mountains, has been displaced to the south along the San Andreas Fault. Intense north -south compression is squeezing the Transverse Ranges, and as a result this is one of the most rapidly rising regions of the earth (Wagner, 2002). STRATIGRAPHY The project is mapped as Holocene to late Pleistocene (modern to—500,000 years old), Quaternary alluvial fans (Morton and Cox, 2001; Figure 4). OLD ALLUVIAL FAN A small portion of the project surface is mapped as late to middle Pleistocene alluvial fans (-11,000 to—500,000 year old). These old alluvial fan deposits also are present under the young alluvial fan deposits occurring over most of the project. Sediments are composed of slightly to moderately dissected, slightly indurated to indurated, reddish -brown, sandy alluvial fan deposits. These deposits are capped by moderately to well -developed pedogenic soils with A/ABBBt/Cox horizons (Morton and Cox, 2001; Figure 4). YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN Most of the project is mapped as alluvial fans between Holocene to late Pleistocene in age (modern to—120,000 years old). Sediments consist of unconsolidated, grey, pebbles to gravels derived from the Peninsular ranges (Morton and Cox, 2001; Figure 4). Cogstone 9 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical cogstone v6 6 4 tiroMP ycQCUJ OO2093 0 0 oroo�. io�rli4.*2Q) k3MEM1 E9 • • �, La Sierra Metrolink Station Geology Legend: Morton and Miller, 2006 Parking Lot Expansion Project — Qyf: young alluvial -fan deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene) Riverside County, CA - QTc: conglomeratic sedimentary rocks of Riverside West 7.5' quadrangle (early Pleistocene to late Pleistocene) Qof3: old alluvial -fan deposits, Unit 3 (middle Pleistocene) Project Site Kgb: Gabbro (Cretaceous) City of Riverside Figure 4. Project geology 0 l i i I M I N 0 50 100 Meters* 1:4,800 1 in = 400 ft 200 400 Feet 10 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical RECORD SEARCHES PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES A record search of the project area and a one mile radius was requested from the San Bernardino Museum County Museum (SBCM; Scott, 2015; Appendix B). Online records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database (UCMP, 2015), and the Paleobiology Database (PBDB, 2015) were searched for fossil records as well as print sources. As fossils are typically found more than 10 feet deep in the valley areas of California, the project area and a ten -mile radius were searched for resources. Although there were no records of fossils from within the proposed boundaries or within one mile of the boundary, five fossil localities have been recovered from the Quaternary older alluvium or Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits within a ten -mile radius. Even though these localities are not all recorded as coming from alluvial fan deposits, Quaternary older alluvium is frequently used as a generic term for Pleistocene alluvial deposits (Table 2). Extinct animals recovered from the localities include ground sloth, mammoth, mastodon, camel, bison, and horse. Sediments similar to those found within the project have also produced dire wolves, American lions, sabre- toothed cats, and plant remains as well as other varieties of ground sloth, camels, bison, and horses in San Bernardino and Riverside counties (Scott, 2015). Cogstone 11 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical Table 2. Fossils recovered near the Project Study Area t indicates extinct taxa; LACM = Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; RV = University of California at Riverside Vertebrate Paleontology collection Common Name Taxon Locality Formation; Depth below surface deer Odocoileus sp. Corona; LACM 1207 Quaternary older alluvium; Jefferson 1991b bony fish Osteichthyes Corona - Santa Ana River a.k.a. Corona East; RV8601 Quaternary older alluvium; Jefferson 1991a, 1991b; UCMP 2011 lizard Sauria rabbit Lagomorpha vole Microtus sp. woodrat Neotoma sp. mastodon tMammut sp. horse tEquus sp. cf. camel tcf. Camelops sp. bison tBison sp. horse tEquus occidentalis Riverside, SW side of Pachappa Hill; Riverside Municipal Museum Quaternary older alluvial fan; 11ft; Scott, Gust, and Richards, 2014 mammoth tMammuthus sp. Riverside; UCMP V65248 Quaternary older alluvium; Jefferson 1991b Harlan's ground sloth tParamylodon harlani Rubidoux - Santa Ana River, Thompson Sand Pit; private collection Quaternary older alluvium; Jefferson 1991b mastodon tMammut sp. southern mammoth tMammuthus meridionali s Columbian mammoth t Mammuthus columbi horse tEquus sp. Cogstone 12 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY A multilevel ranking system was developed by professional resource managers within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a practical tool to assess the sensitivity of sediments for fossils. The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system (BLM, 2007; Appendix C) has a multi -level scale based on demonstrated yield of fossils. The PFYC system provides additional guidance regarding assessment and management for different fossil yield rankings. Occurrences of fossil resources are closely tied to the geologic units (e.g., formations or members) that contain them. The probability for finding significant fossils in a project area can be broadly predicted from previous records of fossils recovered from the geologic units present in and/or adjacent to the study area. Using the PFYC system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts. This ranking is not designed to be applied to specific paleontological localities or small areas within units. Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher PFYC value; instead, the relative abundance of localities is intended to be the major determinant for the value assignment. Geological setting and fossil localities were considered in determining paleontological sensitivity according to PFYC criteria. Additionally, sediments nearest to the basement rock where they are produced are typically coarsest; those farthest from the basement rock are finest. The chance of fossils being preserved greatly increases once the average size of the sediment particles are reduced to 5 mm across or less. Fossil preservation also greatly increases with the presence of water. Remains left on the ground are quickly weathered from the sun and destroyed, usually within 20 years or less depending on the environment. So the sands, silts, and clays of rivers, lakes, and oceans are most likely to contain fossils. Both the old and young alluvial fan deposits are ranked as low (PFYC 2) sensitivity at the surface and increasing to moderate and patchy sensitivity (PFYC 3a) by between 5 and 8 feet deep, respectively. Deeper impacts within the project will have a greater potential for fossils (Table 3). Proposed depth of cuts are 6 feet below current ground surface. Should a geotechnical report where bores were logged be associated with this project, this will help determine the depths below the project surface where excavations may encounter fossiliferous sediments. Cogstone 13 cogstone f#LEONT111.061-ARCHOL;..• Table 3. Paleontological Sensitivity Rankings La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical PFYC ranking 5 very high 4 high 3a moderate; patchy 3b moderate; undemonstrated 2 low 1 very low Rock Unit Map symbol (Figure 4) upper 8 ft of young alluvial fan deposit; upper 5 ft of old alluvial fan deposit Qyf, Qof X more than 8 ft deep into the young alluvial fan deposit; more than 5 ft deep into the old alluvial fan deposit Qyf, Qof X CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pleistocene sediments which may be conducive to the preservation of fossils are present subsurficially within the project area. These deposits include Holocene to Pleistocene alluvial fans. Maximum depths of cuts are anticipated to be 6 feet deep. Should a geotechnical report where bores were logged be associated with this project, this will help determine the depths below the project surface where excavations may encounter fossiliferous sediments. It is possible that paleontological resources may be encountered during construction activities within the Holocene to Pleistocene alluvial fans. Based on the planned depth of cuts, no monitoring is currently recommended. If unanticipated fossils are unearthed during construction, work should be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find. Work may resume immediately a minimum of 50 feet away from the find. This procedure should be included in the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training provided to construction personnel. Cogstone 14 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical REFERENCES CITED BLM 2007 Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. Online at http://www.blm. gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/natural_resources/cultural/paleo/Paleont ology_Documents.Par.97864.File.dat/IM2008-009_att1 %20-%20PFYC%20System.pdf Caltrans 2012 Paleontology, Online Environmental Handbook, vol. 1, chapter 8. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol l /sec3/physical/Ch08Paleo/chap08paleo.htm Jefferson, G. T. 1991 a A Catalogue of late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part one, nonmarine lower vertebrate and avian taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, Technical Report #5. 1991b A Catalogue of late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part two, Mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, Technical Report #7. Morton, D. M., and B. F. Cox 2001 Geologic map of the Riverside west 7.5' quadrangle Riverside County, CA. Version 1.0. United States Geological Survey Open File Report 01-451. PaleoBiological database 2015 Online records search of the University of California, Berkeley paleontology database. Scott, E. 2015 Paleontology literature and records review, Interstate 10 Grove Interchange Project, City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. September 2015. Scott, E. and K. Springer 2003 CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor, Winter: 4-10, 17. Scott, E., K. Springer, and J. C. Sagebiel 2004 Vertebrate paleontology in the Mojave Desert: the continuing importance of `follow through' in preserving paleontologic resources, p. 65-70, in M. W. Allen and J. Reed (eds.), The human journey and ancient life in California's Deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference. Maturango Museum Publication No. 15, Ridgecrest, California, USA. Scott, K., S. Gust, and C. Richards 2014 Paleontological Mitigation Report for the State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane addition between Adams and the 60/91/215 interchange in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California; 08-RIV-91 PM 15.6/21.6 EA 08-448403 Contract # 08A1988 Cogstone 15 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical UCMP 2015 Online records search of the University of California, Berkeley paleontology database. Wagner, D.L. 2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. Website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/ Cogstone 16 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical APPENDIX A: QUALIFICATIONS Cogstone 17 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT EDUCATION La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical SHERRI GUST Project Manager and Qualified Principal Paleontologist 1994 M. S., Anatomy (Evolutionary Morphology), University of Southern California, Los Angeles 1979 B. S., Anthropology (Physical), University of California, Davis SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Gust has more than 35 years of experience in California, acknowledged credentials for meeting national standards, and is a certified/qualified principal paleontologist in all California cities and counties that maintain lists. She is a Member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Society for Economic Sedimentology and Paleontology, and others. Gust holds current statewide BLM paleontology permits in California and Nevada. She has special expertise in the identification and analysis of human, animal and fossil bone. SELECTED PROJECTS Double Date Facility, Coachella, Riverside County, CA. Managed paleontological and cultural resources monitoring for construction of new date processing facility. Provided monitoring compliance report. Principal Investigator. 2015 Perris Valley Metrolink Improvement Project, Riverside to Perris, Riverside County, CA. Managed paleontological and cultural resources monitoring for construction of Metrolink Improvements. Ensured completion of daily and monthly updates. Principal Investigator. 2014-2015 Line D Project, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Hemet, Riverside County, CA. Managed paleontological spot checks and monitoring for construction of water line improvements. Provided monitoring compliance report. Principal Investigator. 2014-2015 Temecula Park & Ride at I-15, Caltrans District 8, Temecula, Riverside County, CA. The City of Temecula proposes to construct a park and ride area for commuters interested in participating in ridesharing. Managed determination of an Area of Potential Effects, preparation of a Historic Property Survey Report, and an Archaeological Survey Report. Principal Investigator. 2015 Dune Palms Road Low Water Crossing Replacement Project, La Quinta, Riverside County, CA. The City proposes to replace an outdated bridge with an all-weather bridge. Managed determination of an Area of Potential Effects, preparation of a Historic Property Survey Report, and an Archaeological Survey Report. Principal Investigator. 2015 Paradise Valley Specific Plan, Glorious Land Company, unincorporated Riverside County, CA. The project involves construction of a planned community near Indio on 2,151. Prepared Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment; after project changes provided additional record search and survey and updated report. Principal Investigator. 2011-2015 Heacock Channel Improvement Project, Moreno Valley, Riverside County, CA. Managed cultural and paleontological resources assessments for 50 acres of channel improvements. Principal Investigator. 2014 Mira Loma Beach Street Storm Drain Improvements, Mira Loma, Riverside County, CA. Authored paleontological mitigation plan. Managed paleontological resources monitoring. Provided monitoring compliance report. Principal Investigator. 2014 Cogstone 18 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT EDUCATION La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical JOHN HARRIS Paleontology Practice Leader 1970 Ph.D. Geology with paleontology emphasis, University of Bristol (U.K.) 1967 M.A. Geology with paleontology emphasis, University of Texas, Austin 1964 B.S., Geology, University of Leicester (U.K.) SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Dr. Harris has more than 45 years of experience in Cenozoic paleontology and specializes in terrestrial vertebrate species from Rancho la Brea California and Africa. He is the Chief Curator Emeritus, George C. Page Museum (2015- present); an Adjunct Professor, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah (1996-present); a Visiting Associate in Geology, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology (2001-present); and a Research Associate, National Museums of Kenya (2007 — present). SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Cerling T. E, S. A Andanje, S. A. Blumenthal, F. H. Browna, K. L. Chritz, J. M. Harris, J. Hart, F. Kirera, P. Kaleme, L N. Leakey, M. G. Leakey, N. E Levin, F. K Manthi, B. H. Passey, and K, T Uno. 2015. Dietary changes of large herbivores in the Turkana Basin, Kenya from 4 to 1 million years ago. PNAS 2015 ; published ahead ofprint August 3, 2015, doi:10.1073/pnas.1513075112 El Adli, J. J., M. D. Cherney, D. C. Fisher, J. M. Harris, A. B. Farrell, and S. M. Cox. 2015. Last Years of Life and Season of Death of a Columbian Mammoth from Rancho La Brea. In J. M. Harris (ed) La Brea and Beyond. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 42:65-80. Fuller, B. T. J. M. Harris, A. B. Farrell, G. Takeuchi, and J. R. Southon. 2015. New Technique to Remove Asphalt from Microfossil-rich Matrix from Rancho La Brea. In J. M. Harris (ed) La Brea and Beyond. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 42:151-168. Fuller, B. T., S. M. Fahrni, J. M. Harris. A. B. Farrell, J. B. Coltrain, L. M. Gerhart, J. K. Ward, R. E. Taylor, and J. R. Southon. 2014. Ultrafiltration for asphalt removal from bone collagen for radiocarbon dating and isotopic analysis of Pleistocene fauna at the tar pits of Rancho La Brea, Los Angeles, California. Quaternary Geochronology 22: 85-98. Gold, D. A., J. Robinson, A. B. Farrell, J. M. Harris, O. Thalman, and D. K. Jacobs. 2014. Attempted DNA Extraction from a Rancho La Brea Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi): prospects fora DNA from asphalt deposits. Ecology and Evolution 4 (4): 329-336. Holden, A. R., J. M. Harris, and R. M. Timm. 2013. Paleoecological implications of insect -damaged vertebrate remains from Rancho La Brea, southern California. PLoS ONE 8(7): e67119. do i:10.13 71 /j ournal.pone.0067119 Christiansen, P. and J. M. Harris. 2012. Variation in Craniomandibular morphology and sexual dimorphism in pantherines and the sabercat Smilodon fatalis. PLoS ONE 7(10): e48352. doi:10.1371 /journal.pone.0048352 Gerhart, L., J. Harris, J. Nippert, D. Sandquist, and J. Ward. 2012. Glacial trees from the La Brea Tar Pits show physiological constraints of Low CO2. New Phytologist 194:63-69. Harris, J. M. (ed) 2011. The Age of Mammals.. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Cogstone 19 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT EDUCATION La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical HIM SCOTT Principal Paleontologist 2000 B.S., Geology with paleontology emphasis, University of California, Los Angeles 2013 M.S., Biology with a paleontology emphasis, California State University, San Bernardino SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Scott has more than 20 years of experience in California paleontology and geology. She is a qualified geologist and field paleontologist with extensive survey, monitoring and fossil salvage experience. In addition, she has special skills in fossil preparation (cleaning and stabilization) and preparation of stratigraphic sections and other documentation for fossil localities. Scott serves as company safety officer and is the author of the company safety and paleontology manuals. SELECTED PROJECTS Palm Avenue Grade Separation, Caltrans District 8, San Bernardino County. Directed the assessment of paleontological resources for proposed grade separation of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) Railroad tracks at Palm Avenue and Route 66. Co-authored a combined Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report. Field Director. 2013 State Route 91 HOV Project, Caltrans District 8, Riverside. Co-authored a combined Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report and Paleontological Mitigation Plan for the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Addition between Adams St. and the 60/91/215 Interchange in Riverside. Managed monitoring during construction. Co-author of Paleontological Monitoring Report (PMR). Paleontology Field and Lab Director. 2011-2014 Ranchero Road-BNSF Grade Separation, City of Hesperia, Hesperia. Directed paleontological resources monitoring for the duration of all ground disturbing activities in native sediments greater than five feet deep. Field Director and Report Co-author. 2011-2013 Avenue 52 Grade Separation, Caltrans District 8, Coachella, Riverside County. Performed paleontological record searches, background research, reconnaissance survey, and co-authored PIR/PER. Paleontology Field and Lab Director. 2012 Merced Freeway Project, Caltrans District 10, Merced. Alternated 2 week rotations performing direction of fossil recovery and field preparation of fossils for 5 mile segment of State Route 99 south of Merced. Some 128 localities and 1667 fossils recovered in five months of excavation for detention basins. Contributed to final report. Field / Lab Director and Report Contributor. 2012 Geospatial Paleontology Database, Caltrans District 6, 9, and 10. Conducted paleontological research for 15 counties in central and eastern California for paleontological screening tool. Paleontology Researcher. 2011- 2012 Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, Segments 1-3, Southern California Edison, Los Angeles and Kern counties. Co-authored paleontological resources management plans and directed paleontological monitoring for construction of new electrical transmission facilities. Paleontology Field and Lab Director and Report Co-author. 2007-2009 El Casco Substation Project, Southern California Edison, Riverside County. Performed preconstruction mitigation measures and prepared portions of Paleontological Resources Treatment Plan. Field and Lab Director and Report co-author. 2009 Cogstone 20 cogstone HILEONTOL06T-ARLXAEL00,•r051:NT EDUCATION La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical ANDRE-JUSTIN C. SIM1VIONS Archaeologist/Cross-trained Paleontologist & GIS Supervisor 2014 M.A., Anthropology: Specializing in Anthropological Archaeology, California State University, Fullerton 2010 B.A., Anthropology and History, California State University, Fullerton, graduated cum laude 2012 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, California State University, Fullerton SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS Mr Simmons is a qualified archaeologist and cross -trained paleontologist with extensive field experience in survey, monitoring, faunal analysis, and excavation. He exceeds the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Further, he is certified in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and specializes in ESRI's ArcGIS software. Mr. Simmons is responsible for supervising GIS data collection and management, geospatial analysis, and the production of GIS maps and databases for large and small-scale projects. His key research interests include settlement patterns and use of space among Paleoindians, the American Southwest, early historic and prehistoric California, and historical Mexico. He has over six years of experience in California Archaeology and paleontological monitoring along with more than 24 hours of paleontology training and over four years of GIS experience. SELECTED PROJECTS WECC Path 42, Southern California Edison, Riverside County, CA. Conducted a cultural resources records search and field survey for a 14.5 mile transmission line segment near Thousand Palms. Archaeological/ Paleontological Technician. 2011-2012 Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project, Southern California Edison, Eldorado, NV to Ivanpah, CA. Performed paleontological monitoring for project that involves construction of 195 miles of new transmission lines and associated fiber optic lines across BLM and private lands. Paleontological Monitor. 2012-2013 Devers-Mirage 115 KV System Split Project, Southern California Edison, Riverside County, CA. Performed archaeological and paleontological monitoring during construction activities associated with maintaining and upgrading the electrical systems of Cathedral City, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms and unincorporated Riverside County. Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor. 2011-2012 Leatherneck Substation Project, Southern California Edison, San Bernardino County, CA. Prepared GIS maps for a cultural resources survey and subsequent survey report for ten pulling stations near Twenty -Nine Palms. GIS Technician. 2012 Fogarty Substation, Southern California Edison, Riverside County, CA. Performed archaeological and paleontological monitoring during ground disturbing activities in Lake Elsinore. A historic glass fragment and prehistoric shells were recovered. Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor. 2010-2011 Daggett II, Southern California Edison, San Bernardino County, CA. Conducted archaeological and paleontological monitoring of construction activities of transmission towers and associated access roads for the 225-acre Human External Cargo Helicopter Training Facilities Project in Daggett. Archaeological/Paleontological Monitor. 2011 SR 99 Arboleda Drive Freeway Project, Caltrans District 10, Merced County, CA. Conducted paleontological resources monitoring, fossil recovery, and fossil preparation for a 5-mile segment. Prepared GIS report maps. Some 128 localities and 1,667 fossils recovered in five months of excavation for detention basins. Paleontology & GIS Technician. 2012 Cogstone 21 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical APPENDIX B: SBCM RECORDS SEARCH Cogstone 22 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY I September 2015 Cogstone Resource Management attn: Megan Wilson 1518 W . Taft Avenue Orange, CA 92865 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374 Phone. 909,798,8+30B w ww.3R[prrnly.gln Museum Leonard R. Hernandez Interim Museum Director rc: PALEONTOLOGY LITERATURE AND RECORDS REVIEW, LA SIERRA METROLINK PARK- NG EXTENSION PROJECT, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, RlvElZs1m': COUNTY, CAI,IFORNIA Dear Ms. Wilson, Tyre Division of Geological Sciences of the San Bernardino County Museum (S13CM) has completed a literature review and records search for the above -named project in the City of Riverside. Riverside County, California. Specifically. the property is located in the northwestern quadrant of section 24 (projected), 'Township 3 South, Range 6 West. San Bernardino Base and Ivieridian, as seen on the Riverside West, California 7.5' United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map (1967 edition, photorevised 1980). Previous mapping of'the proposed property (Rogers, 1965; Morton and Cox, 2001) indicates that the study area is situated primarily upon surface exposures of old alluvial fan deposits of middle to later Pleistocene age (= unit Qat), as well as upon outcrops of ?late Pliocene to ?early Pleistocene conglomeratic rocks (— QTe). Of these. the surface and subsurface Pleistocene sediments have high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources, and so are assigned high paleontologic sensitivity. Pleistocene alluvial sediments elsewhere throughout Riverside and San 13ernardino Counties and the Inland Etnpire have been reported to yield significant fossils of extinct animals from the Ice Age (defferson, 1991; Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Scott and Cox, 2008; Springer and others, 2009, 2010; Scott, 2010). Fossils recovered from these Pleistocene sediments represent extinct taxa including manunoths, mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, sabre-toothed cats, large and small horses, large and small camels, and bison, as well as plant macro- and microfossils (3effe.rson. 1991., Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Scott and Cox, 2008: Springer and others, 2009, 2010; Scott, 2010). The conglomeratic: rocks also mapped on the property have undetermined paleontologic sensitivity. For this review, I conducted a search of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPI.I) at the SBCM. The results of this search indicate that no previously -recorded paleontologic resource localities are present within the boundaries of the proposed development property, or from within at (vast one mile in any direction. ROB F.Rr A, Lovreraono IANIrr• RurrnwrADen IAMrR RAMOS NM ChMETM l. FITE ulstrki Secarld Diann e3turyrlr}I• Ihind OtPIfkY Outs Itnc coir. JnsrsGnNZALES Fnwyh a+atncl EEIEICt al arittC ChwestYWr to sramelMMmiw Cogstone 23 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical Literature ! records review, Paleontology, Cogstone: La Sierra Metrolink Parking 2 Recommendations The results of the literature review and the search of the RPLI at the SBCM demonstrate that the study area is situated in part upon Pleistocene older alluvial deposits with high potential to contain paleontologic resources. Excavation in this older alluvium therefore has high potential to impact these resources. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist must develop a program to mitigate impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources. This mitigation program must be consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Scott and Springer, 2003), as well as with regulations currently implemented by the County of Riverside. This program should include, but not be limited to: 1. Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. Areas requiring monitoring include all previously - undisturbed Pleistocene older alluvial sediments present within the boundaries of the property, both at the surface and in the subsurface. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially- fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. 2. Preparation of all recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources (Scott and others, 2004). 3. Identification and full curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation {Scott and others, 2004) and CEQA compliance (Scott and Springer, 2003), The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not considered complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. 4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the full curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. Cogstone 24 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical Literature! records review, Paleontology, Cogstone: La Sierra Metrolink Parking 3 References Anderson, R.S., M.J. Power, S.J. Smith, K.B. Springer and E. Scott, 2002. Paleoecology of a Middle Wisconsin deposit from southern California. Quaternary Research 58(3): 310-317. Jefferson, G.T., 1991. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California: Part Two, mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports, No. 7. Morton, D.M. and B.F. Cox, 2001. Geologic map of the Riverside West 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California, version 1.0. United States Geological Survey Open -File Report 01-451. Digital preparation by R.M. Alvarez and V.M. Diep. Reynolds, S.F.B. and R.L. Reynolds, 1991. The Pleistocene beneath our feet: near -surface Pleistocene fossils in inland southern California basins. In M.O. Woodburne, S.F.B. Reynolds, and D.P. Whistler (eds.), hlland Southern California: the last 70 million years. Redlands: San Bernardino County Museum Special Publication 38(3&4), p. 41-43. Rogers, T.H.,1965. Geologic map of California, Santa Ana sheet. California Division of Mines and Geology. Scale 1:250,000. Scott, E., 2010. Extinctions, scenarios, and assumptions: changes in latest Pleistocene large herbivore abundance and distribution in western North America. In E. Scott and G. McDonald (eds.), Faunal dynamics and extinction in the Quaternary: Papers honoring Ernest L. Lundelius, Jr. Quaternary International 217: 225-239. Scott, E. and S.M. Cox, 2008. Late Pleistocene distribution of Bison (Mammalia; Artiodactyla) in the Mojave Desert of southern California and Nevada. In X Wang and L.G. Barnes (eds.), Geology and Vertebrate Paleontology of Western and Southern North America, Contributions in Honor of David P. Whistler. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series No. 41, p. 359 - 382. Scott, E. and K. Springer, 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor, Fall 2003, p. 4-10, 17. Scott, E., K. Springer and J.C. Sagebiel, 2004. Vertebrate paleontology in the Mojave Desert: the continuing importance of "follow-through" in preserving paleontologic resources. In M.W. Allen and J. Reed (eds.) The human journey and ancient life in California's deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference. Ridgecrest: Maturango Museum Publication No. 15, p. 65-70. Springer, K., E. Scott, J.C. Sagebiel, and L.K. Murray, 2009. The Diamond Valley Lake local fauna: late Pleistocene vertebrates from inland southern California. In L.B. Albright III (ed.), Papers on geology, vertebrate paleontology, and biostratigraphy in honor of Michael O. Woodburne. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65:217-235. Springer, K., E. Scott, J.C. Sagebiel, and L.K. Murray, 2010. Late Pleistocene large mammal faunal dynamics from inland southern California: the Diamond Valley Lake local fauna. In E. Scott and G. McDonald (eds.), Faunal dynamics and extinction in the Quaternary: Papers honoring Ernest L. Lundelius, Jr. Quaternary International 217: 256-265. Cogstone 25 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical Literature ! records review, Paleontology, Cogstone: La Sierra Metrolink Parking 4 Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have. Sincerely, Eric Scott, Curator of Paleontology Division of Geological Sciences San Bernardino County Museum Cogstone 26 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical APPENDIX C: SENSITIVITY RANKING CRITERIA Cogstone 27 La Sierra Metrolink Parking: Paleontology Technical Caltrans Rank Caltrans Description (Caltrans, 2012) PFYC Description (BLM, 2007) PFYC Rank No Rock units of intrusive igneous origin, most extrusive igneous rocks, and moderately to highly metamorphosed rocks are classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources Very Low. The occurrence of significant fossils is non-existent or extremely rare. Includes igneous or metamorphic and Precambrian or older rocks. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is usually unnecessary. 1 Low This category includes sedimentary rock units that: 1) are potentially fossiliferous, but have not yielded significant fossils in the past; 2) have not yet yielded fossils, but possess a potential for containing fossil remains; or 3) contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils if the taxonomy, phylogeny, and ecology of the species contained in the rock are well understood. Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. Includes rock units too young to produce fossils, sediments with significant physical and chemical changes (e.g., diagenetic alteration) and having few to no fossils known. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is not likely to be necessary. 2 Potentially Moderate but Undemonstrated Potential. Units exhibit geologic features and preservational conditions that suggest fossils could be present, but no vertebrate fossils or only common types of plant and invertebrate fossils are known. Surface - disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine appropriate course of action. 3b High Rock units which, based on previous studies, contain or are likely to contain significant vertebrate, significant invertebrate, or significant plant fossils Moderate Potential. Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered and of low abundance. Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found. Surface - disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine appropriate course of action. 3a High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Fossils must be abundant per locality. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability. If impacts to significant fossils can be anticipated, on -the -ground surveys prior to authorizing the surface disturbing action will usually be necessary. On -site monitoring or spot-checking may be necessary during construction activities. 4 Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils are known or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted area. On -the -ground surveys prior to authorizing any surface disturbing activities will usually be necessary. On -site monitoring may be necessary during construction activities. 5 Cogstone 28 APPENDIX F - INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REVIEW FEZ Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project September 29, 2015 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Prepared by: HDR, Inc. 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Report Date: September 29, 2015 B. Report Title: Initial Site Assessment Hazardous Materials Review C. Project Site The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project is located Location: near the intersection of Indiana Avenue and Vallejo Street in the City of Riverside. The project area is located in Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 6 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7 5-minute series Riverside West, California quadrangle. D. Project Riverside County Transportation Commission Proponent: 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92502 Contact: Patricia Castillo Phone: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 E. Principal HDR, Inc. Investigator: 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Phone (858) 712-8400 Report Preparers: Lori Arena and Kelly Kading, CPG F. Report Summary: This memorandum provides the results of a limited Initial Site Assessment (ISA)/hazardous materials review of the project site (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 138030024). The hazardous materials review is intended to provide information regarding existing and potential hazardous materials/hazardous waste issues that could be encountered during the implementation of the proposed project. HDR staff reviewed relevant background information and conducted a site reconnaissance to assess the Study Area for existing hazardous materials concerns. i RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location 4 2.2 Project Characteristics 4 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REVIEW RESULTS 7 3.1 Historical Review 7 3.2 County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health 7 3.3 Department of Toxic Substance Control 7 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE RESULTS 10 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 TABLES Table 1 Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations 4 FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location 2 Figure 2 Project Location Map 3 Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan 6 Figure 4 EnviroStor Database Results 9 APPENDICES Appendix A Historical Information Appendix B County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health Correspondence Appendix C Photographic Documentation ii RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California (Figure 1 Regional Location). The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project (Project) would occur on the RCTC-owned vacant lot, east of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking area. As depicted in Figure 2 (Project Location Map), the project site is located along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue at 10901 Indiana Avenue. This memorandum provides the results of a limited Initial Site Assessment (ISA)/hazardous materials review of the project site (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 138030024), for proposed parking lot expansion improvements. The hazardous materials review provides information regarding existing and potential hazardous materials/hazardous waste issues that could be encountered during the implementation of the proposed project. The hazardous materials review includes certain investigatory elements of the ASTM E 1527-13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment protocol; however, this memo does not comply with and is not intended to comply with all of the elements of the ASTM standard. The scope of the hazardous materials review included four elements: 1) review of online regulatory databases for known environmental/hazardous waste issues; 2) a record search from the governing environmental agency; 3) a review of on-line historical documentation for issues that pre -date environmental recordkeeping (pre-mid-1980s); and 4) a site reconnaissance by a qualified Environmental Professional, as defined by ASTM. 1 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Upland Sunsweet antaro Grapeland Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga Guasti Champagne Silverado 11, Norco Corona Mires Etiwanda 3 -4 Rochester Pepper Corner Stoomrngton Crestmore BERNARDINO COUNTY r� RIVERSIDE COUNTY Sunnyslope L Ennis! Ormand Glen AYon Rflh/CIOUX Mira Loma Pedley Al flra La Sierra Arlington May Home Gardens EI Cerrito Riverside Pachappa Casa prenda Biali Ca Arlington Station °cation M<Tngold O�+�Loma Lrnda 8oxSpnngs Woodcrest ❑ "q Extent [3:'J Sunnym_ ead Edgemont Arnold Heights West March y Lake NI i letAr !�i e1.111-1A_IIIINCLAm��j�i�lllCa.�r-� 1 4.1141111,* '"IF / Lake _ Elsinore _ GAG IS_ Produ c[ion1P ropcteURCTC_2021594LaSierre Me[rol ink_ 2597251Map Docslmadlli egi o na l.mad-aocry a:I-31712015 March A F9 Canyon Lake. Regional Location FIGURE 1 2 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project la:lblJ 1'fW.14.4 1,14]a46VR.Il:�NLIWYa Jlerf9meua�m6_caYr cama p_LowsYlI%OL71[CYIafI�RCfIflI.111X 0-a1...11 5f PJJCV J Project Location Map FIGURE 2 3 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The project site is bounded to the north by the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned train tracks (used by Metrolink) and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. Table 1 provides existing City of Riverside General Plan land use designations for the site and adjacent properties. Table 1: Project Site and Adjacent Land Use Designations Proximity to Site Existing Land Use General Plan Designationl On -site Vacant land Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) North Existing BNSF rail line9 and State Route 91 (SR- Rail/Freeway South Single Family Residential (Riverwalk Vista development) Medium Density Residential (MDR) East AMF Riverside Bowling Lanes Commercial (C) West La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking lot Mixed Use — Urban (MU-U) Notes: ' Figure LU-10 Land Use Policy Map, City of Riverside General Plan 2015 The project site is currently a vacant field. Elevation within the project site ranges from 744 to 752 above mean sea level (AMSL). There is an existing mound of soil located on the southern most portion of the site that would be utilized to bring the site's elevation to match the adjacent parking lot's elevation. The study area (shown in Figure 2), includes the project site and also includes the adjacent drive aisle of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 2.2 Project Characteristics The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot at the La Sierra Metrolink Station for both intercity and commuter rail and bus passengers. As identified in Figure 3 (Conceptual Site Plan), with the expansion, the project would provide approximately 513 new parking spaces, 6 bus bays, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4.69 acre site. Additional work/features include: • Site grading; • Asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement and pavement striping; • Curb and gutter; • Concrete planter curbs; • Wrought iron fencing; • Landscaping and irrigation; • LED marquee lighting; • Storm drain facilities; 4 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project • Benches and trash receptacles; • Information kiosk; and, • Restroom facility for use by RTA and site security personnel Construction of the project is anticipated to take approximately 32 weeks total. Grading, asphalt and concrete placement will require 18 weeks of construction. The project site would require approximately 29,746 cubic yards of fill, 30,479 cubic yards of cut and 733 cubic yards of export to bring the site elevation to the same level as the adjacent parking lot.' Landscaping is proposed along Indiana Avenue frontage and within the parking lot. Concrete curb stops are proposed at the end of each row of parking spaces. Sidewalks would be provided for pedestrians walking to and from the proposed bus bays. A new driveway approach would be constructed at the northeastern most corner of the site and would wrap along the project site's eastern and northern boundary to connect to the proposed bus bays. Buses accessing the site would do so through one of two ingress points along Indiana Avenue and would exit the site via the to be signalized existing La Sierra Station/Indiana Avenue intersection. A wrought iron fence would be installed along the northern most boundary of the site to provide separation between the existing rail tracks and the proposed bus shelter areas; and the southernmost boundary along Indiana Avenue. Information provided by RCTC in August 2015 La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project Description 5 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project PRoPOSm ST PROPOSED RP.^,TROO V i�Y JJam. ■_Ey- _- _�_�� ���?:r3�'�pt��;- .. _�: x:,.^`i"•. �d1:y c:.. ...� n..ii. :EFL �_4':'4: ^k.'. �".-c+•:. ...Vej . �1 G:1GI5 Production1Prgec[e1RCTC_20215911a5ierreMetrolink 259725WIap_Oocslmxd&tePlan.mxd-abur/all-9/154201S Conceptual Site Plan FIGURE 3 6 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REVIEW RESULTS The following provides a summary of the various databases reviewed and the results of the review. 3.1 Historical Review A review of an online database, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC site (HistoricalAerials.com) was completed. Aerial photographs (1948, 1966, 1967, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012) and United States Geological Service (USGS) maps (1939, 1941, 1942, 1955, 1962, 1969, 1975, and 1981) were reviewed. Representative aerial photographs and USGS maps are presented in Appendix A. The railroad has been in place since prior to 1939. The northeastern portion of the site was part of a residence that also had agricultural trees (assumed to be citrus). The house was removed sometime after 1980 and prior to 1994. At around this time, the AMF bowling alley building had been constructed. Indiana Avenue had been realigned prior to 1994, at which time the portion of the roadway located on the site was abandoned in place. The La Sierra Metrolink station was constructed in 1995. The residential area south of the project site was constructed after 2005 and prior to 2009. 3.2 County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health The County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (DEH) acts as the Local Oversight Program for the State Water Resources Control Board to manage leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) in this region. Ms. Suzanne Cauffiel, Records Management Account Assistant was contacted via email on August 10, 2015 to request a records search of the site. The records search is queried by street address, which the property does not currently have. A range of addresses for Indiana Avenue was presented to Ms. Cauffiel to complete the record search. A response from the DEH was received on August 25, 2015, indicating that no records were identified. The DEH correspondence is presented as Appendix B. No data regarding any previous LUST located onsite or adjacent to the project site was received. 3.3 Department of Toxic Substances Control A search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control online database tool, EnviroStor was completed on July 22, 2015. A one mile radius was utilized to search surrounding land uses in the area of the project site. The regulatory listing locations are presented as Figure 4 (EnviroStor Database Results). The search resulted in a total of three regulatory listings, and five LUST listings. All of the identified listings are located north of SR-91, generally along Magnolia Avenue. 7 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project The nearest LUST is located approximately 0.50 mile northwest of the site, at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and La Sierra Avenue. The locations of these LUSTS are located hydrologically downgradient from the project site. In addition, SR-91 acts as a physical surface drainage barrier between the project site and the identified sites. Figure 4 also shows Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUST) sites. The LUST term is consistent with the State's current terminology and covers LUFT sites. 8 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project --or.. V ENviRoSToR O C EANUF' SITES ■ Federal Superfund J ■ State Response P!' ■ Voluntary Cleanup ..1 ❑ School Cleartup ''' ❑ Evaluation .a ❑ School Investigation ■ Military Evaluation i ❑ Tiered Permit LI • Corrective Action O PERMITTED SITES '41t, • Operating '1"' 0 Post -Closure 'le' O Non -Operating OI OTHER SITES Yi L. GeoTrac ker LOFT ;_' ❑ GeoTrackerSLIC SL 1al\at 514, a '+ siilelniAr de s dye v.ell, - sn°tu cAt{ s r -raylo St '� Cap ibr v 4 r01., ....k.S% pa Ave La Sierra High Schavl a dianyRd (: s F ri, maby f� pyepL .a�N s a4 ., `6nLSahoSpena g PGiaer ra* A d' '1 to'taPue A 0 rf �s r Hillcrest High School a 5' S� �h{ao pole. AMC Tyler Galleria 15 A 'Map l Satefl rte. 1. o g 4.1 sr A 7-8, 's: tr • A . N "�$ GalleriaaI Tyler e S I..: i. V r %44, di ---kb „.r sr # srr ie LA Kings icetown ■ it P m� t�s t. °0 ' S. 6. + ▪ ' eh2:67 v� o �T•ylerVillage a �' r I A Al�� r9,1 Castle Park 4, e a �a rside-La 4a saffi>ti G° Slerta Metrolink �• i� SL a Aye ntiaas' exu3 TownceMer 6 Shopping Center VLsrep � �a oy a sr m m S 1 Terrace �Ta LA ;,ERRa 3 SO L1 TI-f g a4` P s ..,46 Tyler Springs Apartments 7F • Pyt Gleri. aa,a Pik ,14`� ��"� I �� , g s' L.2 i-L I �Att�i°sin i rer stip1 o`Aye {a y`cti � q o� d'r ' SHOW SITES WITHIN 64C FEET OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS_I109 iIndianaAve,Riverside•ca. Go O SITES CURRENTLY VISIBLE ON YAP 3 SITE S LISTED E XPCAR MS 11ST TO EXCEL PROJECT HAW ▪ CHEVRON EhY'- MONTESSORI SCHOOL ■ COCHRAN AVE''LE S:7=:OL'..0' SERVICES v ❑ KAISER PERK' E'.-= ._ _ _= STATUS NO FURTHER ACTION INACTIVE -ACTION RE4UI RED INACTIVE - NEEDS EVALUATION PROJECT TYPE VOLUNTARY CLEANUP EVALUATION TIERED PERMIT ASS 10493 MAGNOLIA AVENUE 10759 COCHRAN AVENUE 10899 MAGNOLIA AVENUE CITY RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE EnviroStor Database Results FIGURE 4 9 i RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE RESULTS HDR personnel (Lori Arena) performed a site reconnaissance on July 24, 2015. The site is fenced; however, it was left unlocked for the purpose of the site reconnaissance. The site's elevation slopes from Indiana Avenue downward toward the railroad right of way. Appendix C contains photographs taken during the site reconnaissance. The project site is vacant with the exception of overhead power lines (Appendix C, Photo 1 & 2). The project site contains some vegetation in the northwest portion, (Appendix C, Photo 3). The site contains a portion of abandoned roadway (Appendix C, Photo 4). The northeastern portion of the site was littered with trash (Appendix C, Photo 5) from a vagrant camp, located adjacent to the property border fence (Appendix C, Photo 6). A remnant of a cinder block wall was located along the eastern boundary of the site (Appendix C, Photo 7). Construction activities were noted in the vacant lot adjacent to the site. Street light poles belonging to RCTC are currently being stored on the project site (Appendix C, Photo 8). These materials will be removed from the site. No areas of ground staining, vegetation damage, or ponding were noted. No underground or aboveground storage tanks, ponds, septic tanks cleanouts, or transformers were noted during the site reconnaissance. The locations of off -site facilities listed in the EnviroStor database were verified. The nearest gas station (Chevron) is located on the corner of La Sierra Avenue and Indiana Avenue, approximately 0.25 west of the project site. 10 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the scope of work performed for this hazardous materials review, the following conclusions are provided: • No Regulatory listings were identified on or adjacent to the project site. • Off -site regulatory listings are located approximately 0.50 mile northwest of the project site. The locations of these listings are north of SR-91, which acts as a physical barrier. In addition, the listing sites are located down gradient from the project site indicating no containment migration would occur. • The nearest gas station (Chevron) was not identified in the regulatory search to have a LUST case listing. In addition, this gas station is located a significant distance (0.25 mile) from the project site, and is not considered to be an environmental concern. • Historical review indicates that the eastern portion of the project site was previously part of a residence that had agricultural uses. The house was removed after 1980 and prior to 1994. Indiana Avenue was realigned prior to 1994, and the roadway located on the project site was abandoned in place. The La Sierra Metrolink station was constructed in 1995. • The agricultural uses of the residence were located on this portion of the site. It is assumed that the citrus trees were removed with the construction of the AMF bowling alley building, prior to 1994. This prior land use is not considered to be an environmental concern. • The site contains trash, concrete, and asphalt which contains paint. These items will require proper removal, prior to any construction activities or placement of soil on the site. Based upon the lack of identified environmental concerns on or adjacent to the project site, the following standard recommendations are provided and recommended to be incorporated into the construction specifications: • RECOMMENDATION 1 - All construction contractors should be instructed to immediately stop all subsurface activities in the event that potentially hazardous materials are encountered, an odor is identified, or significantly stained soil is visible during construction. Contractors should be instructed to follow all applicable regulations regarding discovery and response for hazardous materials encountered during the construction process. • RECOMMENDATION 2 - The trash, concrete, and asphalt located on -site should be cleared and disposed of in a landfill, in accordance with local regulations. If RCTC or the project team has any questions regarding the contents of this technical memorandum, please contact Lori Arena, at (858) 712-8358. 11 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project APPENDIX A HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project la sierra and Indiana, rive:sid A-1 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project A-2 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project APPENDIX B COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CORRESPONDENCE RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Arena, Lori From: Cauffiel; Suzanne <SCauffeQrivcocha.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 3:02 PM To: Arena, Lori Subject: FW. Scanned image From RC.DEH-HAB Hazmat Mx-M503U { 10901, 10903, 10895 & 10800 Indiana Avenue, Riverside Attachments: SharpMFD©rivcocha.org_20150825_152210.pdF Good Afternoon Lori, Re: 10901, 10903, 10895 & 10800 Indiana Avenue Riverside I have attached a copy of your invoice & response letter. Thank you, Suzanne Cauffiel Acct. Asst II Records Management Department of Environmental — EPO 4085 County Circle Dr., Rm. 104 Riverside, CA 92503 Phone' (951 )358-5055 Fax: (951) 358-5017 SCauffieArivcocha. ord Original Message From: SharpMFDOrivcocha.org fmailto:SharpMEDOnvcooha.orol On Behalf Of SharpMFDQ Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:22 PM To: Cauffiel, Suzanne Subject: Scanned image from RC.DEH-HAB Hazmat MSC-M503U Reply to: SharpMFD©rivcocha.org <SherpMFD@rivcocha.org> Device Name: RC.DEH-HAB Hazmat MX-M503U Device Model: MX-M503U Location: DEH Hazmat Roam 104C File Format- PDF MMR(G4) Resolution: 200dpi x 200dpi Attached rile is scanned Image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. htto:llwww.adobe cam! This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individuaks) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. r B-1 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project If you are not the author's intended recipient, 6e advised that you have received this emair in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately. z B-2 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project County ❑f Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL. HEALTH STEVE VAN STOCKUM, DIRECTOR •. Awuny Ayn..lwRallrrn..n.r Release of Records Response August 25, 2015 HDR 8690 Balboa Avenue Suite ##200 San Diego, CA 92123 Attn: Lori Arena Service Request No: 34093 Your request dated 8/10/15, concerning Hazardous Materials Management Records has been received and a file search has been conducted. The appropriate action has been taken. Address City Records round 10901, 10903, 10895 & 10800 Riverside ❑ Yes ® No Indiana Avenue Environmental Protection & Oversight Division Hazardous Materials Management Branch Attn: Suzanne Cauffiel, Records Management P.O. Box 7909 Riverside, CA 92513-7909 (951) 358-5055 Pax (951) 358.5342 -14365 County nude Drive. Rcxan Ip-i, Riveniidu CA 92501 p35!y 5,18.5U41 Pax t9511 3581141 \ALIdtcss+. f'-O Bats i ]09, RiYmidt. C.i 92511.7V09 W CL1.G .r 1 YCONI7.o rg B-3 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Photo 1: The southwestern portion of the project site. Overhead electrical lines occur on the western side of site. View is from the existing and adjacent La Sierra parking area, toward the southeast. Photo 2: The middle portion of the project site - the view is toward the east. C-1 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Photo 3: The northern portion of the project site contains some existing vegetation. SR-91 and the existing BNSF rail line are located in the background view. View is toward the northeast. Photo 4: Abandoned roadway in the middle portion of the project site. View is toward the west. C-2 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Photo 5: The northeastern portion of the site littered with trash. The view is toward the east. Photo 6: A vagrant camp located adjacent to the project site fence. The existing BNSF rail line is in the background. View is toward the north. C-3 RCTC La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Project Photo 7: Remnant of a cinder block wall foundation. View is towards Indiana Avenue to the south. Photo 8: Construction materials on -site. View is toward the northwest. C-4 APPENDIX G - TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Submitted by: ITERIS LA SIERRA METROLINK PARKING LOT EXPANSION Traffic Impact Study Draft Report Submitted to: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) December 21, 2015 17J 16-1759 Draft Traffic Impact Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i Appendices List of Tables List of Figures 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.2 STUDY AREA 1 1.3 STUDY PERIODS 4 2.0 Existing Traffic Volumes 4 3.0 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology 7 3.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 8 4.0 Existing Conditions 9 5.0 Proposed Project Traffic 10 5.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 10 5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 5.3 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 10 6.0 Opening Year 2016 Without Project Conditions 13 6.1 AMBIENT GROWTH 13 6.2 OPENING YEAR 2016 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 13 7.0 Opening Year 2016 With Project Conditions 15 7.1 OPENING YEAR 2016 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 15 8.0 Cumulative Without Project Conditions 18 8.1 AMBIENT GROWTH 18 8.2 CUMULATIVE PROJ ECT GROWTH 18 8.3 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 23 9.0 Cumulative With Project Conditions 25 9.1 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 25 10.0 Proposed Mitigation Measures 28 11.0 Findings and Conclusions 32 i Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Appendix A: Scoping Agreement Appendix B: Existing Traffic Counts Appendix C: LOS Calculation Sheets Draft Traffic Impact Study Report APPENDICES ii Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Draft Traffic Impact Study Report LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Definitions — HCM Methodology 7 Table 2: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service 9 Table 3: Existing Trip Generation 10 Table 4: Project Trip Generation 10 Table 5: Opening Year 2016 Without Project Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service 13 Table 6: Opening Year 2016 With Project Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service 15 Table 7: Intersection Impact Summary — Opening Year Conditions 17 Table 8: Cumulative Development Projects 19 Table 9: Cumulative Development Projects —Trip Generation 20 Table 10: Cumulative Without Project Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service 23 Table 11: Cumulative With Project Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service 25 Table 12: Intersection Impact Summary — Cumulative Conditions 26 Table 13: Opening Year With Project Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service — With Mitigations 29 Table 14: Cumulative With Project Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service — With Mitigations 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Study Intersections 2 Figure 2: Project Site Plan 3 Figure 3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 5 Figure 4: Existing Lane Configurations 6 Figure 5: Project Trip Distribution 11 Figure 6: Project Trip Assignment 12 Figure 7: Opening Year 2016 Without Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 14 Figure 8: Opening Year 2016 With Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 16 Figure 9: Location of Cumulative Projects 21 Figure 10: Trips Generated by Cumulative Projects 22 Figure 11: Cumulative Without Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 24 Figure 12: Cumulative With Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 27 Figure 13: Intersection Lane Geometrics w/ Mitigations 31 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Draft Traffic Impact Study Report This traffic impact study has been prepared for the proposed expansion of the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in the City of Riverside. This report provides detailed information concerning the methodology, findings, and conclusions of the traffic analysis. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) proposes to expand the parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project (Project) would occur on the RCTC-owned adjacent vacant lot, east of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking area. The project site is located along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue at 10901 Indiana Avenue in the City of Riverside, California. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project site in relation to the surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan. The project site is currently a vacant field and is bounded to the north by the existing Metrolink train tracks and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by a bowling alley, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 1.2 STUDY AREA In conjunction with City of Riverside staff, seven (7) intersections were selected for analysis. All analysis parameters, study locations and methodology assumptions were included as part of the scoping agreement with the City of Riverside, which was approved by the City prior to initiating the traffic analysis. The approved scoping agreement is included in Appendix A. The 7 intersections represent locations that may potentially be impacted by traffic due to the proposed project. The study intersections are illustrated in the previously referenced Figure 1 and are as follows: 1. SR-91 WB Ramps & La Sierra Avenue; 2. SR-91 EB Ramps & La Sierra Avenue; 3. Indiana Avenue & La Sierra Avenue; 4. Vista Terrace & La Sierra Avenue; 5. Indiana Avenue & Grande Vista Parkway; 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave; and 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave (Future). 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Metrolink__ Drwy East Legend • Project Site QStudy Intersection OLa Sierra Ave NOT TO SCALE ITERISa:, La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis FIGURE 1 Study Area fP0VC 900'600L6 So/NOMI MOO sooz onv ,.9e or dnr Ntl7d 311E NOISNVdX3 101 ONIN21Vd N011V1S NM-102113W VN21318 Vl 301S83/UN oisswwo) uppwodsooii µuno) aNsiangg i Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 1.3 STUDY PERIODS Traffic operations were evaluated for each of the following scenarios during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours: • Existing Conditions; • Opening Year 2016 Without Project Conditions; • Opening Year 2016 With Project Conditions; • Cumulative Conditions Without Project Conditions; and • Cumulative Conditions With Project Conditions. 2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing traffic counts at all 6 existing intersections were conducted in September 2015. All counts were conducted during the a.m. peak period (7:00 — 9:00) and p.m. peak period (4:00 — 6:00). The traffic impact analysis is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each location. Detailed vehicle classification counts were conducted at three locations. Truck percentages at rest of the intersections were calculated from an adjacent intersection for which truck percentages were available. Detailed vehicle turning movement data are included in Appendix B. Figure 3 shows the existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Figure 4 shows the existing lane configurations at the intersections. 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Magnolia Ave m if; D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE 4-628/525 F2/1 i266/629 41) I C CO W A co o A (7,' N 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J LC)� CO V r)- IOI� Y 4-1/10 F 338/380 3/25 _ 364/596 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave 481 /310 -4k 613---► 280/798i 1 A 0 AN CO �-.4 rn � CO 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Avg f. n Viste pk k'Y Legend i Project Site QStudy Intersection rn L- Cr) NCO CO N IIN r 1 Y t 106/216 F 176/228 *-102/195 602/483-' 272/363-1. 151 /276i t I r* CO oWcu N oco N 0 o 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J 4-57/38 4-6/5 ,-8/5 87/77 -4k 37/109i I CO CO � cos". Or. co N 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J O) N N N LC) 1 Y 4-4/9 .1-320/382 ,-9/13 19/63_4k 357/537-1. 46/24i r' W �I w� W 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave J ITEMS La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion FIGURE 3 Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Volumes (2015) Magnolia Ave Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE nae Vista pkwy •-J111 L '-1'-1111 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J CID 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave J t t 1 r' 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps J i 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave.' Legend Project Site QStudy Intersection .414.4 r z 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave L *4.114 � z tt�► 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave J ITERIS'a:, La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion FIGURE 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Lane Configurations Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 3.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The quality of traffic operations is characterized using the concept of level of service (LOS). Level of service is defined by a range of grades from A (best) to F (worst). At intersections, LOS "A" represents relatively free operating conditions with little or no delay. LOS "F" is characterized by extremely unstable flow conditions and severe congestion with volumes at or near the intersection's design capacity. This results in long queues backing up from all approaches to intersections. For intersections located in the City of Riverside or under Caltrans' jurisdiction, analysis of traffic operations were conducted utilizing Riverside's Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, as well as parameters (loss time per phase, minimum green, saturation flow rates, etc.) recommended per the City guidelines. The City of Riverside uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology for evaluation of intersection operating conditions. LOS analysis was calculated at the study intersections using VISTRO software. Table 1 presents a brief description of each level of service letter grade, as well as the range of HCM average intersection delay associated with each grade for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. TABLE 1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS — HCM METHODOLOGY Level of Service Description Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. < 10 < 10 B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. >10 and < 20 >10 and < 15 C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. >20 and < 35 >15 and < 25 D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. >35 and < 55 >25 and < 35 E Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. >55 and < 80 >35 and < 50 F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. > 80 > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. 7 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion I -TERN Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 3.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The City of Riverside considers LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS to be used for all City intersections and roadways of Collector or higher classification. The City considers a significant impact to occur if a location that is forecast to operate at LOS D or better in "without project" conditions exceeds LOS D in "with project" conditions. In addition, a significant impact is considered to occur if the project results peak hour delay to increase as follows: LOS A/B = By 10.0 seconds LOS C = By 8.0 seconds LOS D = By 5.0 seconds LOS E = By 2.0 seconds LOS F = By 1.0 seconds 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the six study intersections. Table 2 summarizes the existing LOS at the study intersections. LOS calculations sheets are provided in Appendix C. TABLE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ` Intersection Name Control AM Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS PM Peak Hour Delay V/C 7ec.) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 0.62 16.7 B 0.70 22.4 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 0.63 15.8 B 0.68 21.1 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.62 27.8 C 0.78 56.0 E 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 0.44 17.6 B 0.48 18.1 B 5 Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.13 8.9 A 0.21 11.7 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave TWSC - 13.1 B - 18.8 C 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - - - - - - Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume -to -Capacity Ratio for Signalized Intersections, TWSC - Two -Way Stop Control As shown in Table 2, the following intersections are operating at LOS E or worse: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). 9 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC This section defines the traffic generated by the proposed project in a three -step process including trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment. The proposed project consists of 513 parking spaces. Access to the project site would be provided along Indiana Avenue with two driveways, one existing and one additional driveway to be built as part of the project. 5.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The peak hour trip generation rates for the proposed project were calculated based on the existing trips generated by the existing parking lot. Trip generation methodology was approved by the City of Riverside as part of Scoping Agreement. The approved scoping agreement is included in Appendix A. The existing parking lot at La Sierra Metrolink Station has 1,021 parking spaces. Based on existing counts, the current parking lot generates 36 a.m. peak hour trips and 471 p.m. peak hour trips. Table 3 shows the trips generated by the existing parking lot. TABLE 3: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION In Out Total AM Peak Hour 27 9 36 PM Peak Hour 107 364 471 The proposed project would have 513 parking spaces. By applying the existing trip generation rates per parking space, the proposed project is forecast to generate 19 new a.m. peak hour trips and 237 new p.m. peak hour trips. Table 4 shows the project trip generation. TABLE 4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION In Out Total AM Peak Hour 14 5 19 PM Peak Hour 54 183 237 5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of new vehicle trips associated with the project. The geographic distribution of project trips is based on the locations of local activity centers and the street system that serves the site. The trip distribution utilized for the future with project analysis was developed in conjunction with City of Riverside staff as part of Scoping Agreement. The distribution pattern developed for the project is shown in Figure 5. 5.3 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT Trips generated by the project, as shown in Table 4, were assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the distribution patterns to estimate the project related peak -hour traffic at each of the study intersections. The project trips were assigned based on distribution inputs to the VISTRO network. Figure 6 illustrates the a.m. and p.m. peak hour project trip assignment. 10 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion I -TERN 0 l i25% I N a Cn O 0 0 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J 0 co co 41) 85%-' 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave / 1 25%i 1Co NI VI C. 0 0 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps J 4-15 % 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave_ oo t(60%) 11—(10%) i(15%) 1 10%� 0 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J Legend Project Site QStudy Intersection a l 1 U1 0 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave / F%o Inbound Trips Percentage i(%) Outbound Trips Percentage ITEMS r rr�m bai� La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion FIGURE 5 Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution 4/14 I A co m co 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J co I7 r 12/46 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave / rn 1 4/14 —* 1� N m A A O) 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps J n N Y 4-2/8 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave_ N M t 3/110 4-1/18 €1 /27 1 1/5 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J Legend Project Site QStudy Intersection 1 1 CO 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J 1 4-4/156 12/46-0. 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave / ITEMS r rr�m bai� La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion FIGURE 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Assignment Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 6.0 OPENING YEAR 2016 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS The projected opening year of parking lot is 2016. Therefore, this section analyzes opening year 2016 traffic conditions without the proposed project. Opening Year 2016 without project traffic volumes were developed by considering traffic increases due to ambient growth. 6.1 AMBIENT GROWTH Ambient traffic growth is the traffic growth that will occur in the study area due to general employment growth and housing growth. An ambient growth rate of two (2) percent per year was used based on discussions with City of Riverside staff and approved Scoping Agreement. 6.2 OPENING YEAR 2016 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate opening year 2016 without project intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Figure 7 shows the opening year 2016 without project peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Table 5 summarizes the opening year 2016 without project levels of service at the study intersections. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. TABLE 5: OPENING YEAR 2016 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Name Control AM V/C Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS PM V/C Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 0.63 17.3 B 0.71 23.5 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 0.64 16.2 B 0.70 22.3 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.63 28.5 C 0.80 62.1 E 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 0.45 17.8 B 0.49 18.4 B 5 Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.13 9.0 A 0.34 15.2 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave TWSC 13.2 B - 19.3 C 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - - - - - Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume -to -Capacity Ratio for Signalized Intersections, TWSC - Two -Way Stop Control As shown in Table 5, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). This is the same intersection that is currently operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. 13 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion DERN Magnolia Ave m w D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE rn CO CO COv- COCO 45, l 4-640/536 F2/1 -271/641 �t Arn co A O\ N N A 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J M V I� IOI� r Y 4-1/10 .1-344/388 3/26 -4k 371 /608 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave N 0 o 7 m co 491 /316 -# 6/3-P. 286/814i t(°' o CO -LCO CO N 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Avg f. n Viste pk k'Y Legend i Project Site QStudy Intersection CO CO CO N � CS/ W a N 0)O0) 1)l� t 108/220 1-179/233 -104/198 614/492-' 277/370-► 154/282 i w oacw A W 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J 4-58/38 F6/5 ,-8/5 89/79-# 4/5-10. 37/111 i 4trr CO o - ccr� ib 9? o� 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J 4-4/9 F327/390 i9/13 20/64-# 364/548-0. 47/25i 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave ITEMS La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis FIGURE 7 Opening Year Without Project Traffic Volumes (2016) Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 7.0 OPENING YEAR 2016 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Opening year with project volumes were developed by adding the trips generated by proposed project as described in Section 5, to opening year 2016 without project volumes, as described in Section 6. Levels of service for each of the study intersections were then calculated based on these volumes. Figure 8 shows the opening year 2016 with project peak hour volumes at the study intersections. 7.1 OPENING YEAR 2016 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate opening year 2016 with project intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 6 summarizes the opening year 2016 with project levels of service at the study intersections. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. TABLE 6: OPENING YEAR 2016 WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Name Control AM WC Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS PM V/C Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 0.63 17.3 B 0.73 25.2 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 0.64 16.3 B 0.73 24.6 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.64 28.7 C 0.88 93.4 F 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 0.45 17.8 B 0.50 18.5 B 5 Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.13 9.1 A 0.36 15.7 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.13 5.6 A 0.36 13.0 B 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - 13.3 B - 16.0 C Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume -to -Capacity Ratio for Signalized Intersections, TWSC - Two -Way Stop Control As shown in Table 6, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). Table 7 below summarizes the impact analysis based on the City of Riverside's threshold criteria. As can be seen from Table 7, the intersections at La Sierra Avenue and Indiana Avenue is impacted based on the City's threshold criteria. 15 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion DERN Magnolia Ave m w D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE f. n Viste pk k'Y Legend i Project Site QStudy Intersection t 640/536 F 2/1 ,- 275/655 �t A O�_ v A W 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J moo - IOI� r Y 4-1/10 4-344/388 15/72 —4 371 /608 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave / 491 /316_* 6/3_± 289/827_, t r► 0) - N - CO N A IQ O O 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps J 1s, 7 4-2/8 F349/394 1 376/616 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave_y M co cc) cc0 M N N N O �l� 614/492_* 279/375_ 154/282i 4-111/330 4-180/251 i105/226 � t_ r► ((..� co W A O W � A � 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J O O N V OCO CO 0) 0) CO �l� t 58/38 4— 6/5 i 8/5 89/79 -' 4/5 37/111 i - w O U I � o ro� CO 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J NN 1 4.- 4/9 4— 331 /546 i 9/13 20/64 —4k 376/594 47/25 i �r' Co Co 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave / ITEMS r rr�m bai� La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis FIGURE 8 Opening Year With Project Traffic Volumes (2016) small uoisuedx3 101 Supped )11.1H alaW eaaals el I uoissmwoD uope}aodsueal Aluno3 ams.lamu LZ loafoad aql }o Lied se paznleuSis aq 1pnn anuany euelpul uo uopoasaalul ise3 AeManua * - aloN - - - J 0'9T 8 £'ET - - - - JSM1 any euelpul /Aennanua )IulloalaW nnaN N £'9- N 9'L- 8 0'ET b 9'S 0 E'6T 8 Z'£T *OSM1 any euelpul / �se3 Aennanlaa �Iulloa�aW N S'0 N T'0 8 EST b T'6 8 Z'ST y 0'6 pazlleU$lS any euelpul / AMiId elsln apueag N T'0 N 0'0 8 S'8T 8 8'LT 8 b'8T 8 8'LT pazlleU$lS a�eaaal e�sln /any e�aalS el £'T£ N Z'0 3 b'E6 0 L'8Z 3 T'Z9 J S'8Z pazlleU$lS any euelpul /any e�.aalS el N b'Z N T'0 J 9'bZ 8 £'9T 0 £'ZZ 8 Z'9T pazlleU$IS sduaell 83 T6-21S / any eaaalS el N CT 0'0 Z'SZ 8 £'LT J S'EZ 8 E'LT pazlleuBlS sdwe8 8M T6AIS / any eaaa!s el Aelaa 0 ead Wd opeuluaaapa (N/A) Ae; pedwl anoH dead maul (pas) Aelaa dead !Aid pafoad SO an tam as) elan d W , an (pas) SOl Aelaa anoH dead INV ;Mid 1.noym piwoj eN uolpasaa;ul �1‘10Il1aNOD uv3A JNIN3dQ — A21t/W W n$13Vd W l NO1103S2131N1 :L 318V1 liodau ApnlS pudLuI Juju 1, ajnia Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 8.0 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS This section analyzes cumulative traffic conditions without the proposed project. Cumulative without project traffic volumes were developed by considering traffic increases due to ambient growth and specific planned or approved development projects in the study area, without consideration of the proposed project. 8.1 AMBIENT GROWTH Ambient traffic growth is the traffic growth that will occur in the study area due to general employment growth and housing growth. An ambient growth rate of two (2) percent per year was used based on discussions with City of Riverside staff and approved Scoping Agreement. 8.2 CUMULATIVE PROJECT GROWTH Cumulative project traffic growth is growth due to specific, known development projects in the area surrounding the study locations that may affect traffic circulation. A list of cumulative projects within the region was provided by the City of Riverside, as shown in Table 8. Detailed trip generation data for these cumulative projects within the vicinity of the project site is provided in Table 9. The general location of each of the cumulative projects is shown in Figure 9. The peak hour vehicle trips expected to be generated by these developments within the study area are shown in Figure 10. Trip distribution for the cumulative projects were assigned depending on the type of development, residential or non- residential, and location with respect to freeways and major arterials. 18 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS _ Draft Traffic Impact Study Report TABLE 8: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Address/APN Case # Project Status Date 1 3280 La Sierra/132-140-006 P14-0654 Development agreement for a 9 acre, 199 unit senior restricted apartment complex with 35,000- 40,000 square feet of commercial space and "pocket park." Submit 7/31/2014 2 3280 La Sierra/132-140-006 15-2321 Site development for construction of a new 4,070 sq. ft. convenience store and gas station with attached 1,820 sq. ft. automatic self -serve car wash. Plan check 6/15/2015 3 Northeasterly corner of Indiana Ave and La Sierra Ave/ 138-030-026 Construction of a 103 unit apartment on 2.25 acres of the existing 13.02 acres of the site utilizing the existing parking lot Fin-App 5/6/2013 4 Northeasterly corner of Indiana Ave and La Sierra Ave/ 138-030-026 P13-0967 Development of vacant lot by construction of new Arco service station facility with 4,700 sq. ft. retail (first floor) (with Alcohol sales) and 2,365 sq. ft. office storage (2nd floor). Self service car wash and detail center and eight fueling dispenser with overhead canopy. B-APP 11/22/2013 5 10938 Magnolia Ave P14-0026 Development of new McDonald's Final 1/13/2014 19 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS _ small uoisuedx3 Supped munoaq.avl eliaiS el I uoissmwoD uope}aodsueal Aluno0 amsJamu OZ 88b'T 86 Lb 0£ 9ET L9 Zb ZL'96b 597E %8b %ZS Zb'5b %6b %LE 0000� E spleuoQaIAl VE6 9Z00-17id / and ogouboW 8£60T LT9 TS 9Z LZ Ob 61 TZ lelol 65 9 E E b Z Z %0T sdullnuaalul L8S 6b bZ SZ Zb OZ TZ IelolgnS 9E9 Z9 0E ZE i=5 9Z CZ %ZS sdul ifq-ssnd EZZ'T TIT 175 95 56 9b 8b 17875T WET %617 %TS 178'II %617 %TS saasuadslp 2ul�an; 8 ysem ae0 pue'aaluaD Ile;aa 'uol;e;S set 9b6 6 T T L T 0 T 9S'E ZE'0 %SL %SZ OE'0 %TZ %6L dl9 0 000T b'Z a2eaol5 aDUJO OST 88 8 b S Z T T lelolgn5 ZTT OT 5 9 E T Z %95 sdul Aq-ssnd TOZ LT 6 TT S Z E OL'Zb TEE %ZS %817 96'0 %8E %Z9 VlD 0 0 OL S Ilelail OZ8 9Z0-0£0-8£T / auais p7/pumpu/ S89 179 ZZ £T ES Zb TT 59'9 Z9'0 %SE %59 T5'0 %08 %0Z sllun EOT luaus;aedy oZZ 9Z0-0£0-SET / peals 137/tmampui EZZ'I TTI VS LS 56 9b 8b 1787ST 98'ET %617 %TS 1781T %6b %TS saasuadslp $uman; 8 yselN ae0 pue aims aDualuanuo0 imm u01;e1S seD 9176 900-017T-Z£T / aua!S o7 OSZ£ T9ET 601 £S £S SS Z£ £Z lelol 9L9 6S TE 9E ST 9 6 lePoww0D lelol SL L £' b Z T T %0T sdullowalul ZSL S9 bE Ob LT 9 OT IelolgnS 956 E8 Et' ZS ZZ 8 ET %95 sdul Aci-ssnd 80L'T 8bT LL Z6 8E ST bZ OL'Zb TEE %ZS %8b 96'0 %8E %Z9 VlD ;s 0 OT Ob apedg lepauauaoo 0Z8 S89 OS EZ LT Ob 9? VI bb'E SZ'0 a %9b %VS OZ'0 %99 %bE s;lun 66T luaus;aedy pa;ala;saa aoluaS ZSZ 900-017T-Z£T / onal5 D7 08Z£ t I saleb of n Apo sa;ea an ad Sa;ea N a -ad I dead NOLLVIA3N39 dRll—S1D3fOdd 1N3Wd013n3Q 3nlltflnWnD :6 31atfl liodau Apnis pudtuI Juju 1, ajuia Metrolink__ Drwy East La Sierra Ave NOT TO SCALE Legend Project Site Study Intersection Cumulative Project Site La Sierra Ave List of Project Sites 1 3280 La Sierra (Senior restricted apartments and commercial space) 2 3280 La Sierra (Gas station with convenience store and car wash) 3 Indiana / La Sierra (Apartments) 4 Indiana / La Sierra (Retail, office storage, gas station, detail center, and car wash) 5 10938 Magnolia Ave (McDonalds) ITERISa:, La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis FIGURE 9 Cumulative Project Locations Magnolia Ave m w D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE 3 ❑❑4 4_6/5 -20/29 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J II— 11/16 15/16—O. 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave / / 6/5-' 20/29 1� A O A O 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps J 1 111-11/16 15/16-1. 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave_ f. n Viste pk k'Y Legend Project Site QStudy Intersection ■ Cumulative Project Site �4/4 ,-7/11 5/5_# 7/11 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J i4/6 1� � VI A 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J 15/16-1. 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave / ITEMS r rr�m bai� La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion FIGURE 10 Traffic Impact Analysis Cumulative Project Trips Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 8.3 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate cumulative without project intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Figure 11 shows the cumulative without project peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Table 10 summarizes the cumulative without project levels of service at the study intersections. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. TABLE 10: CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Name Control AM V/C Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS PM V/C Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 0.65 18.2 B 0.73 25.5 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 0.66 17.2 B 0.73 24.7 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.65 29.2 C 0.81 70.2 E 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 0.46 18.0 B 0.50 18.8 B 5 Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.13 9.0 A 0.35 15.2 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave TWSC - 13.4 B - 20.0 C 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - 13.1 B - 15.5 C Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume -to -Capacity Ratio for Signalized Intersections, TWSC - Two -Way Stop Control As shown in Table 9, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse: • La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps (pm peak hour). This is the same intersection that is projected to operate at unsatisfactory conditions even under opening year without project conditions. 23 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS _ Magnolia Ave m w D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE 4-646/540 F2/1 -292/670 I CO N_ A N ? N 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J MCO .4I� IOI� Y 4-1/10 41-355/403 3/26--# 387/624 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave 497/320 —4 6/3-10 306/842 i 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps FN)' v\\. 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave f. n Viste pk k'Y Legend Project Site QStudy Intersection ■ Cumulative Project Site 4-112/224 F179/233 i111/209 I 619/497—# m 277/370-0. iv� 161/293i a 0, a co 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J v 0 N LCO I, O M I r 1 Y 4-58/38 F6/5 -12/11 89/79—# 4/5-1m. 37/111 i I O ? � m c� v, 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J CO N LO ;1 Y 4-4/9 F338/406 *-9/13 20/64-' 379/564-0. 47/25i CO CO II O 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave ITEMS La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis FIGURE 11 Opening Year Cumulative Without Project Traffic Volumes (2016) Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 9.0 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Cumulative with project volumes were developed by adding the trips generated by proposed project as described in Section 5, to cumulative without project volumes, as described in Section 6. Levels of service for each of the study intersections were then calculated based on these volumes. Figure 12 shows the cumulative with project peak hour volumes at the study intersections. 9.1 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate cumulative with project intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 11 summarizes the cumulative with project levels of service at the study intersections. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. TABLE 11: CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Name Control AM V/C Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS PM WC Peak Hour Delay (Sec.) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 0.65 18.2 B 0.75 27.9 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 0.66 17.3 B 0.77 27.3 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.65 29.5 C 0.90 102.2 F 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 0.46 18.0 B 0.51 19.0 B 5 Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Signalized 0.14 9.0 A 0.37 15.8 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave TWSC 0.14 5.6 A 0.36 13.0 B 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - 13.1 B - 16.5 C Notes: LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume -to -Capacity Ratio for Signalized Intersections, TWSC - Two -Way Stop Control As shown in Table 10, the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). Table 11 below summarizes the impact analysis based on the City of Riverside's threshold criteria. As can be seen from Table 11, the intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Indiana Avenue is impacted based on the City's threshold criteria. 25 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS _ Traffic Impact Study I Draft Report TABLE 12: INTERSECTION IMPACT SUMMARY -CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection Name Control Without Project PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS AM Peak Delay (sec) With Hour LOS Project PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Impact Determination IAM Peak Hour Impact (Y/N) PM Peak Hour Impact (Y/N) A Delay AM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 18.2 B 25.5 C 18.2 B 27.9 C 0.0 N 2.4 N La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 17.2 B 24.7 C 17.3 B 27.3 C 0.1 N 2.6 N La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 29.2 C 70.2 E 29.5 C 102.2 F 0.3 N 32.0 Y La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 18.0 B 18.8 B 18.0 B 19.0 B 0.0 N 0.2 N Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Signalized 9.0 A 15.2 B 9.0 A 15.8 B 0.0 N 0.6 N Metrolink Driveway East /Indiana Ave TWSC* 13.4 B 20.0 C 5.6 A 13.0 B -7.8 N -7.0 N New Metrolink Driveway /Indiana Ave TWSC - - - - 13.1 B 16.5 C - - - - Note - * Metrolink Driveway East intersection on Indiana Avenue will be signalized as part of the project. 26 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Magnolia Ave m w D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE 3 ❑❑4 4— 646/540 I— 2/1 i 295/683 I A N A co O 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J �co �Ia rI4 4-1/10 4-355/403 15/72 387/624 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave / / 497/320_* 6/3_0. 309/856i 1� 0 A C N N CD 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps J r- Y t 2/8 360/409 1 392/633 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave_ f. n Viste pk k'Y Legend Project Site QStudy Intersection ■ Cumulative Project Site / N CO N r-- La M 7 N O 4ji O) lN_ 7 4—115/334 4—180/251 i 112/237 619/497_* 279/375_0. 161 /293i I CO CO IV V CO C A N 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J 0 O N CO CO .Ji1► t 58/38 .4— 6/5 12/11 89/79 —4 4/5 37/111 i I O N m N 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J t 4/9 .4— 342/561 9/13 20/64 -' 391/610 47/25 i w:i O 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave / ITEMS r rr�m bai� La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis FIGURE 12 Opening Year Cumulative With Project Traffic Volumes (2016) Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 10.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES To reduce the overall impact associated with project -related traffic to a level of insignificance, as defined under City of Riverside Guidelines, the following mitigation measures are proposed and the resulting level of service analyses are shown in Tables 13 and Table 14. Level of service analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C. The following mitigation measures are recommended for the impacted intersections: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave • Restripe westbound shared through -right to dedicated right turn lane. • Add a westbound right turn overlap phase. Lane geometrics with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures are illustrated in Figure 13. 28 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Draft Traffic Impact Study Report TABLE 13: OPENING YEAR W TH PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - WITH MITIGATIONS Intersection Name Control Without AM Peak Hour Delay (sec) Project PM Pea _ elay (sec) 111_ our lay ec) With Project Peak LOS PM Peak Delay (sec) Hour LOS AM Peak Delay Impact Determination Hour Impact (Y/N) PM Peak Hour Impact (Y/N) Delay La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 17.3 B 23.5 C 17.3 B 25.2 C 0.0 N 1.7 N La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 16.2 B 22.3 C 16.3 B 24.6 C 0.1 N 2.4 N La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 28.5 C 62.1 E 30.9 C 59.4 E 2.4 N -2.7 N La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 17.8 B 18.4 B 17.8 B 18.5 B 0.0 N 0.1 N Grande Vista Pkwy /Indiana Ave Signalized 9.0 A 15.2 B 9.1 A 15.7 B 0.1 N 0.5 N Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave TWSC* 13.2 B 19.3 C 5.6 A 13.0 B -7.6 N -6.3 N New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - - - - 13.3 B 16.0 C - - - - Note - * Metrolink Driveway East intersection on Indiana Avenue will be signalized as part of the pro'ect. 29 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion l ERIS Draft Traffic Impact Study Report TABLE 14: CUMULATIVE WI ROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE - WITH MITIGATIONS Intersection Name Control Without AM Peak Hour -- Project PM Peak Delay (sec) Hour LOS AM Hour Delay (sec) With Project Peak LOS PM Peak Delay (sec) Hour LOS AM Peak A Delay Impact Determination Hour Impact (Y/N) PM Peak Hour Impact A (Y/N) Delay Delay (sec) LOS La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized 18.2 B 25.5 C 18.2 B 27.9 C 0.0 N 2.4 N La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized 17.2 B 24.7 C 17.3 B 27.3 C 0.1 N 2.6 N La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized 29.2 C 70.2 E 31.4 C 66.1 E 2.2 N -4.1 N La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized 18.0 B 18.8 B 18.0 B 19.0 B 0.0 N 0.2 N Grande Vista Pkwy /Indiana Ave Signalized 9.0 A 15.2 B 9.0 A 15.8 B 0.0 N 0.6 N Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave TWSC* 13.4 B 20.0 C 5.6 A 13.0 B -7.8 N -7.0 N New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave TWSC - - - 13.1 B 16.5 C - - - Note - * Metrolink Driveway East intersection on Indiana Avenue will be signalized as part of the oroi 30 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion l ERIS Magnolia Ave m w D Indiana Ave NOT TO SCALE tt 1. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps J L. .t 6. Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave / s z tttr' 2. La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps 4- CD 1 _1 7. New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave_ •<a m= �w +411.44 s _s z L H r 3. La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave J Legend i Project Site QStudy Intersection L *4.11 L. 4. La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace J / 4- 5. Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave / ITEMS r rr�m bai� La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion FIGURE 13 Traffic Impact Analysis Mitigated Lane Configurations Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 11.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following is a summary of the findings of the traffic impact analysis: 1. The proposed project would consist of a parking lot at the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station located in Riverside, California. The La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Project (Project) would occur on the RCTC-owned adjacent vacant lot, east of the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station and parking area. The project site is located along the northwestern side of Indiana Avenue at 10901 Indiana Avenue in the City of Riverside, California 2. The project site is currently a vacant field and is bounded to the north by the existing Metrolink train tracks and State Route 91 (SR-91), to the east by a bowling alley, to the south by Indiana Avenue and residential uses, and to the west by the existing La Sierra Metrolink Station parking lot. 3. Traffic impact analysis was conducted for the existing and opening year 2016. 4. All of the study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the following: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). 5. The proposed project is forecast to generate 19 new a.m. peak hour trips and 237 new p.m. peak hour trips. 6. For opening conditions without project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the following: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). 7. For opening conditions with project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the following: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour) 8. Based on the City of Riverside's traffic impact threshold of significance, the proposed project would result in impact at one unsatisfactory study intersection under opening year 2016 with project conditions. 9. For cumulative without project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the following: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour). 10. For cumulative with project conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the following: • La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave (pm peak hour) 32 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Draft Traffic Impact Study Report 11. Based on the City of Riverside's traffic impact threshold of significance, the proposed project would result in impact at one unsatisfactory study intersection under opening year 2016 with project conditions. 12. Following mitigations are recommended to reduce the traffic impacts to less than significant levels: a) La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave • Restripe westbound shared through -right to dedicated right turn lane. • Add a westbound right turn overlap phase. 33 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Traffic Impact Study I Appendix APPENDIX A: SCOPING AGREEMENT Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion L.f1 O° ILIb'l I Ii I-: Exhibit B SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY This letter acknowledges the City of Riverside Public Works Traffic Engineering Division requirements for traffic impact analysis of the following project. The analysis must follow the City Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide dated December 2014. Case No. Related Cases - SP No. EIR No. GPA No. CZ No. Project Name: La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Extension Project Location: 10901 Indiana Avenue. City of Riverside, CA Project Description: The protect consists of enlarging the La Sierra Metrolmk Station parking area by using the adjoining property to accommodate the proposerrnprovemems.The project wawa provloe approximately 5is new parking spaces, 6 bus pays- a new aeoesst driveway from Indiana Avenue, and a small, wood frame storage building on an approximately 4 69 acre site. Consultant Developer Name: Rajat Parashar Riverside County Transportation Commission Address: 801 S Grand Ave, Suite 530 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-802-1713 A. Trip Generation Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, most recent edition i1' SEE AITAC `'I MENT Existing Land Use vacant Proposed Land Use Parking Existing Zoning Mixed Use - Urban (MU U) Proposed Zoning Mixed Use - Urban (MU-U) Total Daily Trips 1,288 AM Trips PM Trips In 14 Out Total 5 19 54 183 237 Based on Existing Trips Internal Trip ❑ Yes 0 No ( % Trip Discount) Allowance Pass -By Trip Allowance ❑ Yes ❑x No ( % Trip Discount) (Attach additional sheet if this is a multi -use site with a breakdown of trips generated) B. Trip Geographic Distribution: N 60 % S 15 (See attached exhibit for detailed assignment) C. Background Traffic Project Completion Year: 2016 Other area projects to be included: See Attachment E i5 % W io % Annual Ambient Growth Rate: 12 Please contact PJlenehig Division or use the most recently provided data Model/Forecast methodology If required D. Build -out Studies: Does this project require a Build -out Study per TIA Guidelines Section 7.2? ❑ Yes 0 No E. Study intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or comments from other agencies.) 1. Indiana Avenue & Parking Lot Entry/Exit (1) 2. Indiana Avenue & Parking Lot Entry/Exlt (2) 5. Vista Terrace & La Sierra Avenue 6. SR-91 EB Ramps & La Siena Avenue 3. Indiana Avenue & Grande Vista Parkway 7. SR-91 WB Ramps & La Sierra Avenue 4. Indiana Avenue & La Sierra Avenue 8. F. Study Roadway Segments (For Build -out Studies): 1. 5. 2. 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. G. Other Jurisdictional impacts Is this project within any other Agency's Sphere of Influence or one-mae radius of boundaries? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, name of Jurisdiction: Caltrans' Intersections at La Sierra & SR-91 H. Site Plan (please attach a legible 11107' copy) 1. Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (In addition to the standard analysis described In the Guideline) (To be idled out by Public Works Traffic Department) Recommended by: Consultant's Representative Sopping Agreement Submitted on &aping agreement Resubmitted on Approved Scoping Agreement: City rside Traffic Engineering Division 124-71z0ls. Date Date Date 1217/1S Date cc: Planning Division 13 kiguid apuerp r�. 001 an'd q1` di r :v Wed analk) luoineialy of*ed weap ail mum,' NOI1f191b1S1a dl�ll —Se e• a Jp 010210 a d fp / se" \ 17\vences14° 0234 %7.d $¢rl a, ft» a* �4 o 1 4 i A ii I NI E s I ...e•esi,"","„ vwvrn 1 XCCCCG RELATED PROJECTS LIST 3280 La Sierra/132140-006 -,-- P14-0654 Submit 7/31/2014 Development agreement for a 9 acre, l99 unit senior restricted apartment complex with 35,00- 40,000 square feet of cornmerdaI space and 'pocket park" 3280 la Sierra/132-140-006 15-2321 Site development for construction of a new 4,070 sq. ft. convenienve store and gas station with attadted 1,820 sq. ft. automatic setfrserve car wash. Plan check 6/15/2015 Northeasterly corner of Indiana Ave and La Sierra Ave/ 138-030- 026 Construction of a 103 unit apartment on 2.25 sues of the existing 13.02 acres of the site utilizing the existing parldng lot Fin-App 5/6/2013 Northeasterly comer of Indiana Ave and La Sierra Ave/ 138-030- 026 P13-0967 Development of vacant far by construction of new Arco aervk e station facility with 4,700 sq. ft. retail (first floor) (with Alcohol sales) and 2,365 sq. ft. office storage (2nd floor). Self service car wash and detail center and eight tfueling dispenser with overhead canopy. B-APP 11/22/2013 10998 Magnolia Ave P14-0026 Development of new McDonald's aural 1/13/2014 Trip Generation Methodology • Trip generation is based on existing trips generated by the parking lot and proportion of the size of new lot. • Based on the existing peak hour volumes, the traffic coming in and out of the parking during peak hour is shown in table below. Table 1: Existing Trips Generated by Metrolink Parking (Adjacent Street Peak Hour) In Out AM Peak Hour 27 9 PM Peak Hour 107 364 i Notes: 1. The peak hour of adjacent road is different from the peak hour of Metrolink Station. The AM peak hour of adjacent road — Indian Avenue is between 7:45 to 8:45. Whereas, according to Metrolink schedule, the Metrolink trains from La Sierra going west, arrive at station between 5:16 am and 7:35 am. • Size of the parking lot: Existing: 1021 spaces, new lot: 513 spaces • Parking lot capacity is increasing by 50%. • Trip Generation: Table 2: Trip Generated by New Lot In Out AM Peak Hour 14 5 PM Peak Hour 54 183 Traffic Impact Study I Appendix APPENDIX 6: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion City of Riverside N/S: Grande Vista Parkway E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume File Name : RIVGRINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 Metrolink Driveway West Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound Grande Vista Parkway Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 4 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 19 8 11 2 23 8 15 3 1 2 1 2 59 57 60 83 11 11 8 0 71 70 69 85 8 12 9 9 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 10 14 11 11 43 31 13 4 57 54 51 69 9 2 3 9 109 87 67 82 213 179 162 181 Total 7 2 40 49 6 259 30 295 38 1 7 46 91 231 23 345 735 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 9 1 2 2 5 10 8 2 49 59 13.6 3.4 83.1 0.5 0.1 3.3 4 4 106 1 111 2 57 1 60 1 69 2 72 2 47 0 49 9 279 4 292 15 538 34 587 2.6 91.7 5.8 1 36.4 2.3 39.7 13 0 2 15 7 0 0 7 3 0 3 6 3 0 1 4 26 0 6 32 64 1 13 78 82.1 1.3 16.7 4.3 0.1 0.9 5.3 1 78 12 91 8 115 15 138 6 89 9 104 2 72 4 78 17 354 40 411 108 585 63 756 14.3 77.4 8.3 7.3 39.5 4.3 51.1 Metrolink Driveway West Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound Grande Vista Parkway Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 218 207 184 136 745 1480 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 1 2 3 2 83 0 85 9 0 2 11 4 69 9 82 181 08:00 AM 1 0 0 1 4 106 1 111 13 0 2 15 1 78 12 91 218 08:15 AM 0 0 2 2 2 57 1 60 7 0 0 7 8 115 15 138 207 08:30 AM 0 0 2 2 1 69 2 72 3 0 3 6 6 89 9 104 184 Total Volume 1 1 6 8 9 315 4 328 32 0 7 39 19 351 45 415 790 % App. Total 12.5 12.5 75 2.7 96 1.2 82.1 0 17.9 4.6 84.6 10.8 PHF .250 .250 .750 .667 .563 .743 .500 .739 .615 .000 .583 .650 .594 .763 .750 .752 .906 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: Grande Vista Parkway E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVGRINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 op Lo 7 M N M v f-� Metrolink Driveway West Out In Total I 81 I I 61 11 11 Right TI•u Left 311 Peak Hour Data I L North = 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AflI I—g Total Volume 4-1 T �► Le32� ThrO Right 71 I I I 55 I 391 Out In Total Grande Vista Parkway I sal r 1-5 A cn CD cn W w Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 4 0 19 23 2 57 11 70 12 0 2 14 4 69 9 82 +15 mins. 0 0 8 8 1 60 8 69 9 1 1 11 1 78 12 91 +30 mins. 3 1 11 15 2 83 0 85 9 0 2 11 8 115 15 138 +45 mins. 0 1 2 3 4 106 1 111 13 0 2 15 6 89 9 104 Total Volume 7 2 40 49 9 306 20 335 43 1 7 51 19 351 45 415 % App. Total 14.3 4.1 81.6 2.7 91.3 6 84.3 2 13.7 4.6 84.6 10.8 PHF .438 .500 .526 .533 .563 .722 .455 .755 .827 .250 .875 .850 .594 .763 .750 .752 231 City of Riverside N/S: Grande Vista Parkway E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume File Name : RIVGRINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 Metrolink Driveway West Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound Grande Vista Parkway Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 1 15 17 1 62 0 63 4 0 1 5 8 136 8 152 237 04:15 PM 0 0 9 9 3 89 1 93 6 0 1 7 12 137 10 159 268 04:30 PM 16 0 71 87 3 79 3 85 3 0 4 7 19 131 4 154 333 04:45 PM 15 1 58 74 2 100 3 105 2 0 2 4 15 129 8 152 335 Total 32 2 153 187 9 330 7 346 15 0 8 23 54 533 30 617 1173 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 6 0 15 21 13 1 81 95 15 0 50 65 5 0 30 35 39 1 176 216 71 3 329 403 17.6 0.7 81.6 2.9 0.1 13.4 16.4 1 87 1 89 7 110 2 119 4 87 1 92 4 115 5 124 16 399 9 424 25 729 16 770 3.2 94.7 2.1 1 29.6 0.7 31.3 7 0 2 9 6 0 3 9 4 0 4 8 5 0 3 8 22 0 12 34 37 64.9 1.5 0 20 57 0 35.1 0 0.8 2.3 17 135 11 163 11 133 1 145 21 138 7 166 11 121 6 138 60 527 25 612 114 1060 55 1229 9.3 86.2 4.5 4.6 43.1 2.2 50 Metrolink Driveway West Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound Grande Vista Parkway Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.30 PM 282 368 331 305 1286 2459 Int. Total 04:30 PM 16 0 71 87 3 79 3 85 3 0 4 7 19 131 4 154 333 04:45 PM 15 1 58 74 2 100 3 105 2 0 2 4 15 129 8 152 335 05:00 PM 6 0 15 21 1 87 1 89 7 0 2 9 17 135 11 163 282 05:15 PM 13 1 81 95 7 110 2 119 6 0 3 9 11 133 1 145 368 Total Volume 50 2 225 277 13 376 9 398 18 0 11 29 62 528 24 614 1318 % App. Total 18.1 0.7 81.2 3.3 94.5 2.3 62.1 0 37.9 10.1 86 3.9 PHF .781 .500 .694 .729 .464 .855 .750 .836 .643 .000 .688 .806 .816 .978 .545 .942 .895 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: Grande Vista Parkway E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVGRINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 M M N co N NJ Metrolink Driveway West Out In Total 1 2771 1 1 2251 21 501 Right TI•u Left 3481 Peak Hour Data North 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 Pill Total Volume 4-1 T �► LeftBI Thr0 Right 111 1 1 1 39 I 291 Out In Total GranrIA Vista Parkway 1 681 r 1-5 co rn w oo 03 V Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:30 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:15 PM +0 mins. 16 0 71 87 1 87 1 89 7 0 2 9 12 137 10 159 +15 mins. 15 1 58 74 7 110 2 119 6 0 3 9 19 131 4 154 +30 mins. 6 0 15 21 4 87 1 92 4 0 4 8 15 129 8 152 +45 mins. 13 1 81 95 4 115 5 124 5 0 3 8 17 135 11 163 Total Volume 50 2 225 277 16 399 9 424 22 0 12 34 63 532 33 628 % App. Total 18.1 0.7 81.2 3.8 94.1 2.1 64.7 0 35.3 10 84.7 5.3 PHF .781 .500 .694 .729 .571 .867 .450 .855 .786 .000 .750 .944 .829 .971 .750 .963 711 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 - Passenger vehicles -Large 2 Axle vehicles - 3 Axle vehicles - 4+ File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 88 129 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 289 183 472 72 1 76 149 838 07:15 AM 78 140 0 218 0 0 0 0 0 301 184 485 82 0 61 143 846 07:30 AM 69 146 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 328 125 453 135 2 74 211 879 07:45 AM 69 240 0 309 0 0 0 0 0 356 105 461 126 1 84 211 981 Total 304 655 0 959 0 0 0 0 0 1274 597 1871 415 4 295 714 3544 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total 63 331 0 394 75 232 0 307 50 161 0 211 101 161 0 262 289 885 0 1174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 369 88 457 0 422 89 511 0 413 124 537 0 305 100 405 0 1509 401 1910 117 1 72 190 110 0 48 158 117 2 58 177 103 1 67 171 447 4 245 696 1041 976 925 838 3780 Grand Total 593 1540 0 2133 0 0 0 0 0 2783 998 3781 862 8 540 1410 7324 Apprch % 27.8 72.2 0 0 0 0 0 73.6 26.4 61.1 0.6 38.3 Total % 8.1 21 0 29.1 0 0 0 0 0 38 13.6 51.6 11.8 0.1 7.4 19.3 Passenger vehicles 587 1503 0 2090 0 0 0 0 0 2720 975 3695 851 3 510 1364 7149 % Passenger Vehicles 99 97.6 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 97.7 97.7 97.7 98.7 37.5 94.4 96.7 97.6 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 5 30 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 44 21 65 5 3 18 26 126 %Lae2Axle Vehicles 0.8 1.9 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 2.1 1.7 0.6 37.5 3.3 1.8 1.7 3 Axle Vehicles 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 1 2 5 8 19 % 3 Axle Vehicles 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 25 0.9 0.6 0.3 4+ Axle Trucks 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 14 5 0 7 12 30 % 4+ Axle Trucks 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0 1.3 0.9 0.4 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru Right 1 App. Total Left 1 Thru Right 1 App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM Int. Total 07:45 AM 69 240 0 309 0 0 0 0 0 356 105 461 126 1 84 211 981 08:00 AM 63 331 0 394 0 0 0 0 0 369 88 457 117 1 72 190 1041 08:15 AM 75 232 0 307 0 0 0 0 0 422 89 511 110 0 48 158 976 08:30 AM 50 161 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 413 124 537 117 2 58 177 925 Total Volume 257 964 0 1221 0 0 0 0 0 1560 406 1966 470 4 262 736 3923 % App. Total 21 79 0 0 0 0 0 79.3 20.7 63.9 0.5 35.6 PHF .857 .728 .000 .775 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .924 .819 .915 .933 .500 .780 .872 .942 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O n O N La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 2030 1 1 21 1 1 01 9641 2571 Right TI•u Left I 3251 I Peak Hour Data I North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AI\i Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 01 15601 061 1 12261 1 19661 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 3192I O 4- c r rn V Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:30 AM 07:00 AM 07:45 AM 07:30 AM +0 mins. 69 146 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 356 105 461 135 2 74 211 +15 mins. 69 240 0 309 0 0 0 0 0 369 88 457 126 1 84 211 +30 mins. 63 331 0 394 0 0 0 0 0 422 89 511 117 1 72 190 +45 mins. 75 232 0 307 0 0 0 0 0 413 124 537 110 0 48 158 Total Volume 276 949 0 1225 0 0 0 0 0 1560 406 1966 488 4 278 770 % App. Total 22.5 77.5 0 0 0 0 0 79.3 20.7 63.4 0.5 36.1 PHF .920 .717 .000 .777 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .924 .819 .915 .904 .500 .827 .912 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 86 126 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 282 180 462 71 0 74 145 819 07:15 AM 78 133 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 296 179 475 81 0 60 141 827 07:30 AM 69 141 0 210 0 0 0 0 0 321 120 441 134 1 72 207 858 07:45 AM 69 234 0 303 0 0 0 0 0 347 102 449 124 0 79 203 955 Total 302 634 0 936 0 0 0 0 0 1246 581 1827 410 1 285 696 3459 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM 63 326 0 389 75 227 0 302 49 159 0 208 98 157 0 255 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 285 869 0 1154 587 1503 0 2090 28.1 71.9 0 8.2 21 0 29.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 84 444 0 416 88 504 0 405 123 528 0 293 99 392 0 1474 394 1868 0 2720 975 3695 0 73.6 26.4 0 38 13.6 51.7 117 1 64 182 109 0 48 157 113 0 52 165 102 1 61 164 441 2 225 668 851 3 510 1364 62.4 0.2 37.4 11.9 0 7.1 19.1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 1015 963 901 811 3690 7149 Int. Total 07:45 AM 69 234 0 303 0 0 0 0 0 347 102 449 124 0 79 203 955 08:00 AM 63 326 0 389 0 0 0 0 0 360 84 444 117 1 64 182 1015 08:15 AM 75 227 0 302 0 0 0 0 0 416 88 504 109 0 48 157 963 08:30 AM 49 159 0 208 0 0 0 0 0 405 123 528 113 0 52 165 901 Total Volume 256 946 0 1202 0 0 0 0 0 1528 397 1925 463 1 243 707 3834 % App. Total 21.3 78.7 0 0 0 0 0 79.4 20.6 65.5 0.1 34.4 PHF .853 .725 .000 .772 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .918 .807 .911 .933 .250 .769 .871 .944 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 r, 0 O n v N Cr; La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1991 1 1 021 1 1 01 9461 2561 Right TI•u Left 1 31931 Peak Hour Data I L North = 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AI—g Passenger Vehicles 1- 1— (4 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 01 15281 3971 1 11891 1 19251 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 31141 O CD A cn A Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 69 234 0 303 0 0 0 0 0 347 102 449 124 0 79 203 +15 mins. 63 326 0 389 0 0 0 0 0 360 84 444 117 1 64 182 +30 mins. 75 227 0 302 0 0 0 0 0 416 88 504 109 0 48 157 +45 mins. 49 159 0 208 0 0 0 0 0 405 123 528 113 0 52 165 Total Volume 256 946 0 1202 0 0 0 0 0 1528 397 1925 463 1 243 707 % App. Total 21.3 78.7 0 0 0 0 0 79.4 20.6 65.5 0.1 34.4 PHF .853 .725 .000 .772 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .918 .807 .911 .933 .250 .769 .871 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Larae 2 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 8 3 5 4 3 8 10 8 11 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 4 1 1 4 16 17 14 20 Total 2 18 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 22 15 37 3 1 6 10 67 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 1 1 0 2 2 3 0 5 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 10 0 5 1 6 0 4 1 5 0 6 1 7 3 12 0 15 5 30 0 35 14.3 85.7 0 4 23.8 0 27.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 6 28 0 44 21 65 0 67.7 32.3 0 34.9 16.7 51.6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 1 0 3 4 2 2 12 16 5 3 18 26 19.2 11.5 69.2 4 2.4 14.3 20.6 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 20 10 13 16 59 126 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 11 1 0 3 4 20 08:00 AM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 10 0 0 6 6 20 08:15 AM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 10 08:30 AM 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 2 3 6 13 Total Volume 1 14 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 24 8 32 2 2 12 16 63 % App. Total 6.7 93.3 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 12.5 12.5 75 PHF .250 .700 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .667 .727 .500 .250 .500 .667 .788 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 a� ccI— ccO 7 C 0 d W Q1 Q 0_ CO O O N N N La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 151 1 1 01 141 11 Right T�u Left 411 Peak Hour Data North s Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 A4- Large 2 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► LeftOl Th u Right 81 1 1 1 261 1 321 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 581 0 O O O Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 11 1 0 3 4 +15 mins. 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 10 0 0 6 6 +30 mins. 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 2 3 6 Total Volume 1 14 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 24 8 32 2 2 12 16 % App. Total 6.7 93.3 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 12.5 12.5 75 PHF .250 .700 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .667 .727 .500 .250 .500 .667 261 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 4 3 Total 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 3 6 10 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 3 0 4 25 75 0 5.3 15.8 0 21.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 6 1 7 0 85.7 14.3 0 31.6 5.3 36.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 5 8 12.5 25 62.5 5.3 10.5 26.3 42.1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 2 1 2 4 9 19 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 08:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 2 3 8 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 33.3 66.7 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.00 .000 1.00 .000 .250 .500 .375 .667 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 M O M N O NJ .c c La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 11 ! 1 1 01 11 01 Right TI•u Left al Peak Hour Data North s Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 ANII I—g 3 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► LeftO I Thr 4 Right 31 ol I al Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r 0 cn O(.0 m N IJ F o a O o xi m � Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 +15 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 2 3 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 33.3 66.7 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 1.000 .000 .250 .500 .375 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 3 Total 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 1 2 8 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 100 0 0 13.3 0 13.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 0 9 1 10 0 13 1 14 0 92.9 7.1 0 43.3 3.3 46.7 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 5 0 0 2 2 4 0 6 10 5 41.7 16.7 0 7 12 0 58.3 0 23.3 40 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 4 2 9 7 22 30 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 4 08:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 08:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 2 5 9 Total Volume 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 5 0 5 10 18 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 80 20 50 0 50 PHF .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .333 .250 .417 .417 .000 .625 .500 .500 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 3 1 1 01 31 01 Right TI•u Left 91 12 Peak Hour Data North s Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Ail I—g 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► LeftO I Thr 4 Right 11 1 1 1 81 1 51 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 1 13 r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 +15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 +30 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 +45 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 2 5 Total Volume 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 5 0 5 10 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 80 20 50 0 50 PHF .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .333 .250 .417 .417 .000 .625 .500 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 - Passenger vehicles -Large 2 Axle vehicles - 3 Axle vehicles - 4+ File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 86 319 0 405 0 0 0 0 0 226 71 297 75 0 207 282 984 04:15 PM 85 311 0 396 0 0 0 0 0 240 71 311 81 1 191 273 980 04:30 PM 77 309 0 386 0 0 0 0 0 233 85 318 71 2 200 273 977 04:45 PM 85 343 0 428 0 0 0 0 0 279 102 381 71 0 201 272 1081 Total 333 1282 0 1615 0 0 0 0 0 978 329 1307 298 3 799 1100 4022 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total 108 365 0 473 91 375 0 466 107 346 0 453 92 326 0 418 398 1412 0 1810 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 232 83 315 0 313 81 394 0 330 107 437 0 261 79 340 0 1136 350 1486 79 0 191 270 80 2 203 285 75 0 179 254 80 0 191 271 314 2 764 1080 1058 1145 1144 1029 4376 Grand Total 731 2694 0 3425 0 0 0 0 0 2114 679 2793 612 5 1563 2180 8398 Apprch % 21.3 78.7 0 0 0 0 0 75.7 24.3 28.1 0.2 71.7 Total % 8.7 32.1 0 40.8 0 0 0 0 0 25.2 8.1 33.3 7.3 0.1 18.6 26 Passenger vehicles 718 2676 0 3394 0 0 0 0 0 2079 668 2747 600 3 1511 2114 8255 % Passenger Vehicles 98.2 99.3 0 99.1 0 0 0 0 0 98.3 98.4 98.4 98 60 96.7 97 98.3 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 11 15 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 27 8 35 9 2 43 54 115 %Lae2Axle Vehicles 1.5 0.6 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 40 2.8 2.5 1.4 3 Axle Vehicles 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 2 0 1 3 12 % 3 Axle Vehicles 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 4+ Axle Trucks 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 8 9 16 % 4+ Axle Trucks 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 0.5 0.4 0.2 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru Right 1 App. Total Left 1 Thru Right 1 App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM Int. Total 04:45 PM 85 343 0 428 0 0 0 0 0 279 102 381 71 0 201 272 1081 05:00 PM 108 365 0 473 0 0 0 0 0 232 83 315 79 0 191 270 1058 05:15 PM 91 375 0 466 0 0 0 0 0 313 81 394 80 2 203 285 1145 05:30 PM 107 346 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 330 107 437 75 0 179 254 1144 Total Volume 391 1429 0 1820 0 0 0 0 0 1154 373 1527 305 2 774 1081 4428 % App. Total 21.5 78.5 0 0 0 0 0 75.6 24.4 28.2 0.2 71.6 PHF .905 .953 .000 .962 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .874 .871 .874 .953 .250 .953 .948 .967 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 00 O N La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1459 1 1820 1 1 01 14291 3911 Right TI•u Left 3279 Peak Hour Data I North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PfV1 Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 01 11541 3731 1 22031 1 15271 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 3730 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:00 PM 04:45 PM 04:00 PM +0 mins. 85 343 0 428 0 0 0 0 0 279 102 381 75 0 207 282 +15 mins. 108 365 0 473 0 0 0 0 0 232 83 315 81 1 191 273 +30 mins. 91 375 0 466 0 0 0 0 0 313 81 394 71 2 200 273 +45 mins. 107 346 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 330 107 437 71 0 201 272 Total Volume 391 1429 0 1820 0 0 0 0 0 1154 373 1527 298 3 799 1100 % App. Total 21.5 78.5 0 0 0 0 0 75.6 24.4 27.1 0.3 72.6 PHF .905 .953 .000 .962 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .874 .871 .874 .920 .375 .965 .975 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 84 316 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 225 68 293 72 0 199 271 964 04:15 PM 81 307 0 388 0 0 0 0 0 237 69 306 81 0 184 265 959 04:30 PM 75 307 0 382 0 0 0 0 0 226 84 310 69 2 197 268 960 04:45 PM 84 341 0 425 0 0 0 0 0 273 101 374 70 0 193 263 1062 Total 324 1271 0 1595 0 0 0 0 0 961 322 1283 292 2 773 1067 3945 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM 107 364 0 471 89 374 0 463 107 344 0 451 91 323 0 414 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 394 1405 0 1799 718 2676 0 3394 21.2 78.8 0 8.7 32.4 0 41.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 83 309 0 310 80 390 0 326 105 431 0 256 78 334 0 1118 346 1464 0 2079 668 2747 0 75.7 24.3 0 25.2 8.1 33.3 78 0 186 264 78 1 200 279 72 0 167 239 80 0 185 265 308 1 738 1047 600 3 1511 2114 28.4 0.1 71.5 7.3 0 18.3 25.6 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 1044 1132 1121 1013 4310 8255 Int. Total 04:45 PM 84 341 0 425 0 0 0 0 0 273 101 374 70 0 193 263 1062 05:00 PM 107 364 0 471 0 0 0 0 0 226 83 309 78 0 186 264 1044 05:15 PM 89 374 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 310 80 390 78 1 200 279 1132 05:30 PM 107 344 0 451 0 0 0 0 0 326 105 431 72 0 167 239 1121 Total Volume 387 1423 0 1810 0 0 0 0 0 1135 369 1504 298 1 746 1045 4359 % App. Total 21.4 78.6 0 0 0 0 0 75.5 24.5 28.5 0.1 71.4 PHF .904 .951 .000 .961 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .870 .879 .872 .955 .250 .933 .936 .963 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 Lc) 7 O co N v La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1433 1 18101 1 1 01 14231 3871 Right TI•u Left 32431 Peak Hour Data 1 L North = 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 Ill I—g Passenger Vehicles H 1—( 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 01 11351 3691 1 21691 1 15041 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 36731 O V cn V Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 84 341 0 425 0 0 0 0 0 273 101 374 70 0 193 263 +15 mins. 107 364 0 471 0 0 0 0 0 226 83 309 78 0 186 264 +30 mins. 89 374 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 310 80 390 78 1 200 279 +45 mins. 107 344 0 451 0 0 0 0 0 326 105 431 72 0 167 239 Total Volume 387 1423 0 1810 0 0 0 0 0 1135 369 1504 298 1 746 1045 % App. Total 21.4 78.6 0 0 0 0 0 75.5 24.5 28.5 0.1 71.4 PHF .904 .951 .000 .961 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .870 .879 .872 .955 .250 .933 .936 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Large 2 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 2 4 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 5 3 1 1 0 4 2 7 5 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 7 2 6 10 8 3 7 19 17 11 14 Total 7 8 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 18 5 1 22 28 61 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 3 0 4 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 4 1 5 0 5 1 6 4 7 0 11 11 15 0 26 42.3 57.7 0 9.6 13 0 22.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 17 0 27 8 35 0 77.1 22.9 0 23.5 7 30.4 1 0 3 4 2 1 3 6 1 0 9 10 0 0 6 6 4 1 21 26 9 2 43 54 16.7 3.7 79.6 7.8 1.7 37.4 47 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 9 12 17 16 54 115 Int. Total 04:45 PM 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 6 7 14 05:00 PM 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 3 4 9 05:15 PM 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3 6 12 05:30 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 9 10 17 Total Volume 4 5 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 16 5 1 21 27 52 % App. Total 44.4 55.6 0 0 0 0 0 87.5 12.5 18.5 3.7 77.8 PHF .500 .625 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .700 .500 .800 .625 .250 .583 .675 .765 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 a� � F O c c O a W c,7; Q 0_ N N N N NJ H� Cr; La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 9I 1 1 01 51 41 Right TI•u Left 191 28 Peak Hour Data North t- 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P1\11 I—g Large 2 Axle Vehicles H 1—'4 4-1 T �► LeftThu Right Ol t 1 1 1 261 1 161 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 1 42 O Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 6 7 +15 mins. 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 3 4 +30 mins. 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3 6 +45 mins. 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 9 10 Total Volume 4 5 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 16 5 1 21 27 % App. Total 44.4 55.6 0 0 0 0 0 87.5 12.5 18.5 3.7 77.8 PHF .500 .625 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .700 .500 .800 .625 .250 .583 .675 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 Total 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 33.3 66.7 0 8.3 16.7 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 2 6 0 66.7 33.3 0 33.3 16.7 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 66.7 16.7 0 1 3 0 33.3 0 8.3 25 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 2 0 3 0 5 12 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 3 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 2 0 1 3 7 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 66.7 0 33.3 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .250 .500 .250 .000 .250 .250 .583 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 M M N O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total I OI ! I I OI OI OI Right T�u Left 51 Peak Hour Data North s 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PI�I 3 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► LeftOl Thr 3 Right 11 I I I 1 I aI Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 2 0 1 3 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 66.7 0 33.3 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .250 .500 .250 .000 .250 .250 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 3 3 Total 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 4 5 9 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 50 50 0 6.2 6.2 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 4 1 5 0 80 20 0 25 6.2 31.2 0 0 4 4 1 0 8 9 11.1 0 88.9 6.2 0 50 56.2 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Eastbound On Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Eastbound Off Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru 1 Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 3 1 3 0 7 16 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 3 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 6 6 10 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 100 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .250 .750 .000 .000 .750 .750 .833 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Eastbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLS91 EPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 a� O c c O a W �O co co O co J .c La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 11 1 1 01 11 01 Right TI•u Left 21 Peak Hour Data North s 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P1\11 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► LeftThr 2 Right OI 1 1 1 7I I 31 1 10I Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 +15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 6 6 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 100 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .250 .750 .000 .000 .750 .750 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 - Passenger VehldeS - Large Z Axle vehicles - 3 Axle vehicles - 4+ File Name : RIVIN9IWAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91`Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 156 54 210 58 0 87 145 153 197 0 350 0 0 0 0 705 07:15 AM 0 157 43 200 67 0 117 184 172 205 0 377 0 0 0 0 761 07:30 AM 0 167 58 225 48 0 123 171 166 313 0 479 0 0 0 0 875 07:45 AM 0 240 43 283 65 1 166 232 119 368 0 487 0 0 0 0 1002 Total 0 720 198 918 238 1 493 732 610 1083 0 1693 0 0 0 0 3343 08:00 AM 0 296 59 355 77 0 145 222 120 382 0 502 0 0 0 0 1079 08:15 AM 0 253 63 316 60 0 170 230 109 392 0 501 0 0 0 0 1047 08:30 AM 0 173 38 211 60 1 143 204 170 407 0 577 0 0 0 0 992 08:45 AM 0 182 64 246 61 0 111 172 145 280 0 425 0 0 0 0 843 Total 0 904 224 1128 258 1 569 828 544 1461 0 2005 0 0 0 0 3961 Grand Total 0 1624 422 2046 496 2 1062 1560 1154 2544 0 3698 0 0 0 0 7304 Apprch % 0 79.4 20.6 31.8 0.1 68.1 31.2 68.8 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 22.2 5.8 28 6.8 0 14.5 21.4 15.8 34.8 0 50.6 0 0 0 0 Passenger Vehicles 0 1596 406 2002 481 2 1046 1529 1118 2509 0 3627 0 0 0 0 7158 %Passenger Vehicles 0 98.3 96.2 97.8 97 100 98.5 98 96.9 98.6 0 98.1 0 0 0 0 98 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 0 23 7 30 13 0 15 28 20 27 0 47 0 0 0 0 105 i arge z n ie veh des 0 1.4 1.7 1.5 2.6 0 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.1 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 1.4 3 Axle Vehicles 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 2 4 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 11 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 4+ Axle Trucks 0 2 9 11 1 0 0 1 12 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 30 4+ Axle Trucks 0 0.1 2.1 0.5 0.2 0 0 0.1 1 0.2 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.4 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left 1 Thru Right 1 App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07:45 AM Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 240 43 283 65 1 166 232 119 368 0 487 0 0 0 0 1002 08:00 AM 0 296 59 355 77 0 145 222 120 382 0 502 0 0 0 0 1079 08:15 AM 0 253 63 316 60 0 170 230 109 392 0 501 0 0 0 0 1047 08:30 AM 0 173 38 211 60 1 143 204 170 407 0 577 0 0 0 0 992 Total Volume 0 962 203 1165 262 2 624 888 518 1549 0 2067 0 0 0 0 4120 % App. Total 0 82.6 17.4 29.5 0.2 70.3 25.1 74.9 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .813 .806 .820 .851 .500 .918 .957 .762 .951 .000 .896 .000 .000 .000 .000 .955 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 2173 1 11651 1 1 2031 9621 01 Right TI•u Left 33381 Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AI\i Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 5181 15491 01 1 12241 1 20671 Out In Total n I a Siarra Aveues 1 3291 4—g c r 1-5 N A N N CO CO CO 03 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:00 AM +0 mins. 0 167 58 225 65 1 166 232 119 368 0 487 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 240 43 283 77 0 145 222 120 382 0 502 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 296 59 355 60 0 170 230 109 392 0 501 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 253 63 316 60 1 143 204 170 407 0 577 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 956 223 1179 262 2 624 888 518 1549 0 2067 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 81.1 18.9 29.5 0.2 70.3 25.1 74.9 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .807 .885 .830 .851 .500 .918 .957 .762 .951 .000 .896 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 07:00 AM 0 153 52 205 56 0 86 142 148 194 0 342 0 0 0 0 689 07:15 AM 0 152 41 193 64 0 116 180 168 204 0 372 0 0 0 0 745 07:30 AM 0 164 53 217 46 0 119 165 161 311 0 472 0 0 0 0 854 07:45 AM 0 234 43 277 64 1 164 229 116 362 0 478 0 0 0 0 984 Total 0 703 189 892 230 1 485 716 593 1071 0 1664 0 0 0 0 3272 08:00 AM 0 294 58 352 75 0 144 219 117 376 0 493 0 0 0 0 1064 08:15 AM 0 252 60 312 56 0 168 224 107 386 0 493 0 0 0 0 1029 08:30 AM 0 170 37 207 60 1 141 202 164 400 0 564 0 0 0 0 973 08:45 AM 0 177 62 239 60 0 108 168 137 276 0 413 0 0 0 0 820 Total 0 893 217 1110 251 1 561 813 525 1438 0 1963 0 0 0 0 3886 Grand Total 0 1596 406 2002 481 2 1046 1529 1118 2509 0 3627 0 0 0 0 7158 Apprch % 0 79.7 20.3 31.5 0.1 68.4 30.8 69.2 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 22.3 5.7 28 6.7 0 14.6 21.4 15.6 35.1 0 50.7 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 234 43 277 64 1 164 229 116 362 0 478 0 0 0 0 984 08:00 AM 0 294 58 352 75 0 144 219 117 376 0 493 0 0 0 0 1064 08:15 AM 0 252 60 312 56 0 168 224 107 386 0 493 0 0 0 0 1029 08:30 AM 0 170 37 207 60 1 141 202 164 400 0 564 0 0 0 0 973 Total Volume 0 950 198 1148 255 2 617 874 504 1524 0 2028 0 0 0 0 4050 % App. Total 0 82.8 17.2 29.2 0.2 70.6 24.9 75.1 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .808 .825 .815 .850 .500 .918 .954 .768 .953 .000 .899 .000 .000 .000 .000 .952 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 2141 I 1148I I I I 1981 9501 OI Right TI•u Left 3289I Peak Hour Data I North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Af�l Passenger Vehicles 1-5 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right I foal 15241 OI I 1205 12028I Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues I 3233I O A co A Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 234 43 277 64 1 164 229 116 362 0 478 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 294 58 352 75 0 144 219 117 376 0 493 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 252 60 312 56 0 168 224 107 386 0 493 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 170 37 207 60 1 141 202 164 400 0 564 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 950 198 1148 255 2 617 874 504 1524 0 2028 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 82.8 17.2 29.2 0.2 70.6 24.9 75.1 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .808 .825 .815 .850 .500 .918 .954 .768 .953 .000 .899 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Large 2 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 07:00 AM 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 2 3 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 12 07:15 AM 0 3 1 4 3 0 1 4 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 13 07:30 AM 0 3 3 6 2 0 4 6 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 16 07:45 AM 0 6 0 6 1 0 2 3 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 16 Total 0 15 5 20 7 0 8 15 11 11 0 22 0 0 0 0 57 08:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 11 08:15 AM 0 1 1 2 3 0 2 5 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 13 08:30 AM 0 3 1 4 0 0 2 2 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 13 08:45 AM 0 3 0 3 1 0 2 3 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 11 Total 0 8 2 10 6 0 7 13 9 16 0 25 0 0 0 0 48 Grand Total 0 23 7 30 13 0 15 28 20 27 0 47 0 0 0 0 105 Apprch % 0 76.7 23.3 46.4 0 53.6 42.6 57.4 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 21.9 6.7 28.6 12.4 0 14.3 26.7 19 25.7 0 44.8 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM Int. Total I 07:45 AM 0 6 0 6 1 0 2 3 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 16 08:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 11 08:15 AM 0 1 1 2 3 0 2 5 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 13 08:30 AM 0 3 1 4 0 0 2 2 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 13 Total Volume 0 11 2 13 6 0 7 13 8 19 0 27 0 0 0 0 53 % App. Total 0 84.6 15.4 46.2 0 53.8 29.6 70.4 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .458 .500 .542 .500 .000 .875 .650 1.00 .950 .000 .964 .000 .000 .000 .000 .828 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 13 1 1 21 111 01 Right T�u Left 261 39 Peak Hour Data I L North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 A4—g Large 2 Axle Vehicles H 1-5 4-1 T �► LeftTh Right $ I 19 t 1 1 1 171 1 271 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 441 V rn w w Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 6 0 6 1 0 2 3 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 1 1 2 3 0 2 5 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 3 1 4 0 0 2 2 2 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 11 2 13 6 0 7 13 8 19 0 27 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 84.6 15.4 46.2 0 53.8 29.6 70.4 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .458 .500 .542 .500 .000 .875 .650 1.000 .950 .000 .964 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 100 0 0 27.3 0 27.3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 50 0 50 9.1 0 9.1 18.2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 4 2 66.7 33.3 36.4 18.2 1 1 1 1 4 0 6 0 0 54.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 2 2 1 4 9 11 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 08:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 % App. Total 0 100 0 100 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .250 .500 .500 .000 1.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 N O O O N La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 11 1 1 01 11 01 Right T�u Left 21 Peak Hour Data 1 L North = Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Afll I—g 3 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► Left2l Thr 2 Right 01 1 1 1 21 1 41 f Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r O Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 100 0 100 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .250 .500 .500 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 1 Total 0 2 4 6 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 12 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 5 0 2 9 11 0 18.2 81.8 0 6.7 30 36.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 3.3 0 0 3.3 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 5 4 2 0 6 8 5 0 13 12 6 0 18 66.7 33.3 0 40 20 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 2 3 5 8 18 30 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 08:15 AM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 Total Volume 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 11 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .375 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .333 .500 .000 .400 .000 .000 .000 .000 .550 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 3 1 1 31 01 01 Right TI•u Left al Peak Hour Data 1 L North = Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 A1I I—g 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► LeftThruRight 41 4 t 1 1 1 of I sl Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r O Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 PH .000 .000 .375 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .333 .500 .000 .400 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 - Passenger VehldeS - Large Z Axle vehicles - 3 Axle vehicles - 4+ File Name : RIVIN9IWPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91`Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total int. Total 04:00 PM 0 262 77 339 140 0 112 252 73 210 0 283 0 0 0 0 874 04:15 PM 0 282 64 346 113 0 145 258 96 250 0 346 0 0 0 0 950 04:30 PM 0 259 83 342 134 1 127 262 86 215 0 301 0 0 0 0 905 04:45 PM 0 310 83 393 145 0 137 282 96 269 0 365 0 0 0 0 1040 Total 0 1113 307 1420 532 1 521 1054 351 944 0 1295 0 0 0 0 3769 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total 0 303 84 387 0 329 79 408 0 296 94 390 0 287 79 366 0 1215 336 1551 155 1 116 272 174 0 116 290 154 0 153 307 144 0 134 278 627 1 519 1147 100 230 0 330 88 287 0 375 106 308 0 414 99 258 0 357 393 1083 0 1476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 989 1073 1111 1001 4174 Grand Total 0 2328 643 2971 1159 2 1040 2201 744 2027 0 2771 0 0 0 0 7943 Apprch % 0 78.4 21.6 52.7 0.1 47.3 26.8 73.2 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 29.3 8.1 37.4 14.6 0 13.1 27.7 9.4 25.5 0 34.9 0 0 0 0 Passenger Vehicles 0 2300 630 2930 1155 2 1031 2188 723 2001 0 2724 0 0 0 0 7842 %Passenger Vehicles 0 98.8 98 98.6 99.7 100 99.1 99.4 97.2 98.7 0 98.3 0 0 0 0 98.7 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 0 25 11 36 3 0 7 10 12 22 0 34 0 0 0 0 80 i arge s n ie veh des 0 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.3 0 0.7 0.5 1.6 1.1 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 1 3 Axle Vehicles 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 4 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 11 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.1 4+ Axle Trucks 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 1 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 10 4+ Axle Trucks 0 0 0.3 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.7 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left Thru 1 Right 1 App. Total Left 1 Thru Right 1 App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04:45 PM Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 310 83 393 145 0 137 282 96 269 0 365 0 0 0 0 1040 05:00 PM 0 303 84 387 155 1 116 272 100 230 0 330 0 0 0 0 989 05:15 PM 0 329 79 408 174 0 116 290 88 287 0 375 0 0 0 0 1073 05:30 PM 0 296 94 390 154 0 153 307 106 308 0 414 0 0 0 0 1111 Total Volume 0 1238 340 1578 628 1 522 1151 390 1094 0 1484 0 0 0 0 4213 % App. Total 0 78.5 21.5 54.6 0.1 45.4 26.3 73.7 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .941 .904 .967 .902 .250 .853 .937 .920 .888 .000 .896 .000 .000 .000 .000 .948 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 16161 1 15781 1 1 1 3401 12381 01 Right TI•u Left 1 31941 Peak Hour Data North � Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PfV1 Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 3901 10941 01 1 18661 1 14841 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 33501 c r 1-5 N N Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:00 PM +0 mins. 0 310 83 393 145 0 137 282 96 269 0 365 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 303 84 387 155 1 116 272 100 230 0 330 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 329 79 408 174 0 116 290 88 287 0 375 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 296 94 390 154 0 153 307 106 308 0 414 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 1238 340 1578 628 1 522 1151 390 1094 0 1484 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 78.5 21.5 54.6 0.1 45.4 26.3 73.7 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .941 .904 .967 .902 .250 .853 .937 .920 .888 .000 .896 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 04:00 PM 0 259 76 335 138 0 111 249 72 207 0 279 0 0 0 0 863 04:15 PM 0 274 62 336 112 0 145 257 93 250 0 343 0 0 0 0 936 04:30 PM 0 257 80 337 134 1 125 260 84 208 0 292 0 0 0 0 889 04:45 PM 0 307 82 389 144 0 135 279 89 268 0 357 0 0 0 0 1025 Total 0 1097 300 1397 528 1 516 1045 338 933 0 1271 0 0 0 0 3713 05:00 PM 0 301 84 385 155 1 116 272 95 227 0 322 0 0 0 0 979 05:15 PM 0 326 77 403 174 0 115 289 87 283 0 370 0 0 0 0 1062 05:30 PM 0 293 91 384 154 0 151 305 105 302 0 407 0 0 0 0 1096 05:45 PM 0 283 78 361 144 0 133 277 98 256 0 354 0 0 0 0 992 Total 0 1203 330 1533 627 1 515 1143 385 1068 0 1453 0 0 0 0 4129 Grand Total 0 2300 630 2930 1155 2 1031 2188 723 2001 0 2724 0 0 0 0 7842 Apprch % 0 78.5 21.5 52.8 0.1 47.1 26.5 73.5 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 29.3 8 37.4 14.7 0 13.1 27.9 9.2 25.5 0 34.7 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 307 82 389 144 0 135 279 89 268 0 357 0 0 0 0 1025 05:00 PM 0 301 84 385 155 1 116 272 95 227 0 322 0 0 0 0 979 05:15 PM 0 326 77 403 174 0 115 289 87 283 0 370 0 0 0 0 1062 05:30 PM 0 293 91 384 154 0 151 305 105 302 0 407 0 0 0 0 1096 Total Volume 0 1227 334 1561 627 1 517 1145 376 1080 0 1456 0 0 0 0 4162 % App. Total 0 78.6 21.4 54.8 0.1 45.2 25.8 74.2 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .941 .918 .968 .901 .250 .856 .939 .895 .894 .000 .894 .000 .000 .000 .000 .949 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 15971 1 15611 1 1 3341 12271 01 Right TI•u Left I 31581 Peak Hour Data North cri ^^ V Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 nil Passenger Vehicles N 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 3761 10801 01 1 18541 1 14561 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 33101 A Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 307 82 389 144 0 135 279 89 268 0 357 +15 mins. 0 301 84 385 155 1 116 272 95 227 0 322 +30 mins. 0 326 77 403 174 0 115 289 87 283 0 370 +45 mins. 0 293 91 384 154 0 151 305 105 302 0 407 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume % App. Total PHF 0 1227 334 1561 0 78.6 21.4 .000 .941 .918 .968 627 1 517 1145 54.8 0.1 45.2 .901 .250 .856 .939 376 1080 0 1456 25.8 74.2 0 .895 .894 .000 .894 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Large 2 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 04:00 PM 04:15PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 3 1 2 3 1 4 8 4 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 1 2 6 3 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 12 14 Total 0 13 7 20 3 0 4 7 10 9 0 19 0 0 0 0 46 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 6 0 4 1 5 0 12 4 16 0 25 11 36 0 69.4 30.6 0 31.2 13.8 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 7 10 30 0 70 3.8 0 8.8 12.5 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 1 4 0 5 1 2 0 3 2 13 0 15 12 22 35.3 64.7 15 27.5 0 34 0 0 42.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 5 7 13 9 34 80 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 3 1 4 1 0 2 3 6 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 14 05:00 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 05:15 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 05:30 PM 0 3 3 6 0 0 2 2 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 13 Total Volume 0 11 4 15 1 0 4 5 7 12 0 19 0 0 0 0 39 % App. Total 0 73.3 26.7 20 0 80 36.8 63.2 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .917 .333 .625 .250 .000 .500 .417 .292 .750 .000 .679 .000 .000 .000 .000 .696 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 15 1 1 41 111 01 Right TI•u Left 161 31 Peak Hour Data I L North = Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P1\11 I—g Large 2 Axle Vehicles H 1-5 4-1 T �► LeftTh u Right 71 t 1 1 1 121 1 191 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 1 31 A cn cn Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 3 1 4 1 0 2 3 6 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 3 3 6 0 0 2 2 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 11 4 15 1 0 4 5 7 12 0 19 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 73.3 26.7 20 0 80 36.8 63.2 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .917 .333 .625 .250 .000 .500 .417 .292 .750 .000 .679 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 04:00 PM 04:15PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 Total 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 100 0 0 18.2 0 18.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 50 0 50 9.1 0 9.1 18.2 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 4 3 57.1 42.9 36.4 27.3 0 7 0 0 63.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 4 1 2 0 7 11 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 100 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .250 .250 .000 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .438 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O v La Sierra Avenue Out In Total I OI I I OI OI OI Right T�u Left 31 Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 Pill 3 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► Left4l Thr � Right I I I OI I 61 f Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r oz (D N Q � o a O o 221 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 100 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .250 .250 .000 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No :1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ram Eastbopnd Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total I 04:00 PM 04:15PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 Total 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 3 0 33.3 66.7 0 10 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 100 0 0 10 10 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 83.3 16.7 50 10 0 6 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound SR-91 Westbound Off Ramp Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound SR-91 Westbound On Ramp Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 1 3 0 0 4 10 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 05:15 PM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .417 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: SR-91 Westbound Ramps Weather: Clear File Name : RIVIN91 WPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 O O La Sierra Avenue Out In Total I 2 I I 21 OI OI Right T�u Left of Peak Hour Data North � Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P1\I 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left3l Thr O Right 01 I I I of I 31 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r O oz N Q � o a O o 221 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 - NacsannPr Vahirlas - - :i AXIP VPhlrlPs - 4+ File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 41 123 36 200 10 25 49 84 61 349 26 436 106 37 19 162 882 07:15 AM 20 107 34 161 8 37 33 78 66 334 19 419 101 48 23 172 830 07:30 AM 20 171 30 221 15 33 33 81 63 317 14 394 94 33 16 143 839 07:45 AM 24 232 44 300 27 39 23 89 62 312 10 384 136 47 29 212 985 Total 105 633 144 882 60 134 138 332 252 1312 69 1633 437 165 87 689 3536 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % Passenger Vehicles % Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles % Large 2 Axle vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles % 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks % 4+ Axle Trucks 22 289 76 387 26 181 59 266 19 164 41 224 24 150 32 206 91 784 208 1083 44 47 32 123 16 43 25 84 14 45 25 84 15 22 17 54 89 157 99 345 92 309 18 419 69 325 30 424 83 351 19 453 45 256 8 309 289 1241 75 1605 116 52 43 211 179 96 41 316 165 70 36 271 119 57 21 197 579 275 141 995 196 1417 352 1965 149 291 237 677 541 2553 144 3238 1016 440 228 1684 10 72.1 17.9 22 43 35 16.7 78.8 4.4 60.3 26.1 13.5 2.6 18.7 4.7 26 2 3.8 3.1 9 7.2 33.8 1.9 42.8 13.4 5.8 3 22.3 193 1369 335 1897 98.5 96.6 95.2 96.5 3 31 14 48 1.5 2.2 4 2.4 0 7 1 8 0 0.5 0.3 0.4 0 10 2 12 0 0.7 0.6 0.6 145 286 233 664 97.3 98.3 98.3 98.1 4 5 4 13 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 533 2494 142 3169 98.5 97.7 98.6 97.9 8 42 2 52 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6 0 5 0 5 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 12 0 12 0 0.5 0 0.4 990 427 222 1639 97.4 97 97.4 97.3 21 11 6 38 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.3 1 1 0 2 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 4 1 0 5 0.4 0.2 0 0.3 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 1140 1090 1032 766 4028 7564 7369 97.4 151 2 15 0.2 29 0.4 Int. Total 07:45 AM 24 232 44 300 27 39 23 89 62 312 10 384 136 47 29 212 985 08:00 AM 22 289 76 387 44 47 32 123 92 309 18 419 116 52 43 211 1140 08:15 AM 26 181 59 266 16 43 25 84 69 325 30 424 179 96 41 316 1090 08:30 AM 19 164 41 224 14 45 25 84 83 351 19 453 165 70 36 271 1032 Total Volume 91 866 220 1177 101 174 105 380 306 1297 77 1680 596 265 149 1010 4247 % App. Total 7.7 73.6 18.7 26.6 45.8 27.6 18.2 77.2 4.6 59 26.2 14.8 PHF .875 .749 .724 .760 .574 .926 .820 .772 .832 .924 .642 .927 .832 .690 .866 .799 .931 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 0 v (5s .c La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1998 1 11771 1 1 2201 8661 911 Right T�u Left 31751 Peak Hour Data I North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AI\i Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 061 12971 771 1 11161 1 16801 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 27961 c r 1-5 0 v, A 0 W O CO w Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 24 232 44 300 27 39 23 89 62 312 10 384 136 47 29 212 +15 mins. 22 289 76 387 44 47 32 123 92 309 18 419 116 52 43 211 +30 mins. 26 181 59 266 16 43 25 84 69 325 30 424 179 96 41 316 +45 mins. 19 164 41 224 14 45 25 84 83 351 19 453 165 70 36 271 Total Volume 91 866 220 1177 101 174 105 380 306 1297 77 1680 596 265 149 1010 % App. Total 7.7 73.6 18.7 26.6 45.8 27.6 18.2 77.2 4.6 59 26.2 14.8 PHF .875 .749 .724 .760 .574 .926 .820 .772 .832 .924 .642 .927 .832 .690 .866 .799 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 40 121 34 195 10 25 48 83 61 340 25 426 103 36 18 157 861 07:15 AM 20 98 33 151 7 35 33 75 64 326 19 409 99 46 23 168 803 07:30 AM 20 167 25 212 15 33 32 80 59 311 14 384 90 33 16 139 815 07:45 AM 23 222 42 287 26 37 21 84 62 305 10 377 133 45 28 206 954 Total 103 608 134 845 58 130 134 322 246 1282 68 1596 425 160 85 670 3433 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 22 279 75 376 26 179 56 261 18 159 41 218 24 144 29 197 90 761 201 1052 193 1369 335 1897 10.2 72.2 17.7 2.6 18.6 4.5 25.7 44 47 32 123 15 42 25 82 14 45 25 84 14 22 17 53 87 156 99 342 145 286 233 664 21.8 43.1 35.1 2 3.9 3.2 9 91 301 18 410 68 321 29 418 83 342 19 444 45 248 8 301 287 1212 74 1573 533 2494 142 3169 16.8 78.7 4.5 7.2 33.8 1.9 43 113 50 42 205 174 92 40 306 165 68 35 268 113 57 20 190 565 267 137 969 990 427 222 1639 60.4 26.1 13.5 13.4 5.8 3 22.2 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 1114 1067 1014 741 3936 7369 Int. Total 07:45 AM 23 222 42 287 26 37 21 84 62 305 10 377 133 45 28 206 954 08:00 AM 22 279 75 376 44 47 32 123 91 301 18 410 113 50 42 205 1114 08:15 AM 26 179 56 261 15 42 25 82 68 321 29 418 174 92 40 306 1067 08:30 AM 18 159 41 218 14 45 25 84 83 342 19 444 165 68 35 268 1014 Total Volume 89 839 214 1142 99 171 103 373 304 1269 76 1649 585 255 145 985 4149 % App. Total 7.8 73.5 18.7 26.5 45.8 27.6 18.4 77 4.6 59.4 25.9 14.7 PHF .856 .752 .713 .759 .563 .910 .805 .758 .835 .928 .655 .928 .841 .693 .863 .805 .931 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 La rn m v H� C La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1957 1 11421 1 1 2141 8391 891 Right TI•u Left 30991 Peak Hour Data I North 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Af�l Passenger Vehicles 1-5 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right foal 12691 761 1 10831 1 16491 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 27321 0 w co 0 W CO w Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 23 222 42 287 26 37 21 84 62 305 10 377 133 45 28 206 +15 mins. 22 279 75 376 44 47 32 123 91 301 18 410 113 50 42 205 +30 mins. 26 179 56 261 15 42 25 82 68 321 29 418 174 92 40 306 +45 mins. 18 159 41 218 14 45 25 84 83 342 19 444 165 68 35 268 Total Volume 89 839 214 1142 99 171 103 373 304 1269 76 1649 585 255 145 985 % App. Total 7.8 73.5 18.7 26.5 45.8 27.6 18.4 77 4.6 59.4 25.9 14.7 PHF .856 .752 .713 .759 .563 .910 .805 .758 .835 .928 .655 .928 .841 .693 .863 .805 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Larae 2 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 1 0 0 1 1 7 3 8 2 1 4 2 4 8 7 11 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 3 1 5 0 2 4 0 6 8 4 5 1 0 0 0 7 10 8 5 3 2 2 3 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 5 4 2 6 17 25 18 27 Total 2 19 9 30 2 4 4 10 6 23 1 30 10 5 2 17 87 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 7 0 7 0 1 3 4 1 1 0 2 0 3 2 5 1 12 5 18 3 31 14 48 6.2 64.6 29.2 2 20.5 9.3 31.8 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 4 5 4 30.8 38.5 30.8 2.6 3.3 2.6 13 8.6 1 6 0 7 1 4 1 6 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 2 19 1 22 8 42 2 52 15.4 80.8 3.8 5.3 27.8 1.3 34.4 2 2 1 5 5 2 1 8 0 2 1 3 4 0 1 5 11 6 4 21 21 11 6 38 55.3 28.9 15.8 13.9 7.3 4 25.2 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 19 20 9 16 64 151 Int. Total 07:45 AM 1 8 2 11 1 2 2 5 0 5 0 5 3 2 1 6 27 08:00 AM 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 7 2 2 1 5 19 08:15 AM 0 1 3 4 1 1 0 2 1 4 1 6 5 2 1 8 20 08:30 AM 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 1 3 9 Total Volume 2 17 5 24 2 3 2 7 2 19 1 22 10 8 4 22 75 % App. Total 8.3 70.8 20.8 28.6 42.9 28.6 9.1 86.4 4.5 45.5 36.4 18.2 PHF .500 .531 .417 .545 .500 .375 .250 .350 .500 .792 .250 .786 .500 1.00 1.00 .688 .694 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 N M N O co v La Sierra Avenue Out In Total I 241 I I 51 171 21 Right TI•u Left 551 Peak Hour Data 1 L North s 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 A4—g Large 2 Axle Vehicles H 1-5 4-1 T �► LeftThu Right 21 t I I I 23 I 221 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues I 451 N w N V Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 1 8 2 11 1 2 2 5 0 5 0 5 3 2 1 6 +15 mins. 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 7 2 2 1 5 +30 mins. 0 1 3 4 1 1 0 2 1 4 1 6 5 2 1 8 +45 mins. 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 1 3 Total Volume 2 17 5 24 2 3 2 7 2 19 1 22 10 8 4 22 % App. Total 8.3 70.8 20.8 28.6 42.9 28.6 9.1 86.4 4.5 45.5 36.4 18.2 PHF .500 .531 .417 .545 .500 .375 .250 .350 .500 .792 .250 .786 .500 1.000 1.000 .688 311 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Total 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 1 1 1 2 5 0 7 1 8 0 87.5 12.5 0 46.7 6.7 53.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 100 0 0 33.3 0 33.3 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 50 50 0 6.7 6.7 0 13.3 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 2 2 3 2 9 15 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 08:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 08:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Total Volume 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 1 0 2 10 % App. Total 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 100 0 50 50 0 PHF .000 .750 .250 1.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .250 .250 .000 .500 .833 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 M N .c La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 41 S 1 1 11 31 0l Right T�u Left 51 Peak Hour Data North s 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 ANII I—g 3 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► LeftO I Thr 4 Right 31 ol I al Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 +30 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 +45 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 1 0 2 % App. Total 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 100 0 50 50 0 PHF .000 .750 .250 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .250 .250 .000 .500 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 5 1 Total 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 10 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 7 1 8 0 10 2 12 0 83.3 16.7 0 34.5 6.9 41.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 8 0 8 0 12 0 12 0 100 0 0 41.4 0 41.4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 3 4 1 0 5 80 20 0 13.8 3.4 0 17.2 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 5 1 6 7 19 29 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08:00 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 08:30 AM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 13 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .583 .000 .583 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .417 .000 .417 .000 .250 .000 .250 .542 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 iu m =o c „ O O .c c La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 71 1 1 01 71 01 Right TI•u Left 121 Peak Hour Data North s Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Ail I—g 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► LeftOl Thr 5 Right 01 1 1 1 71 I 51 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 1 121 r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 +45 mins. 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 1 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .583 .000 .583 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .417 .000 .417 .000 .250 .000 .250 51 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 - NacsannPr Vahirlas - - :i AXIP VPhlrlPs - 4+ File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 60 352 63 475 24 40 25 89 52 156 10 218 113 86 62 261 1043 04:15 PM 62 361 70 493 30 42 31 103 54 166 17 237 112 77 57 246 1079 04:30 PM 46 355 59 460 42 43 70 155 58 165 22 245 92 93 66 251 1111 04:45 PM 48 428 59 535 62 54 53 169 43 189 21 253 102 84 61 247 1204 Total 216 1496 251 1963 158 179 179 516 207 676 70 953 419 340 246 1005 4437 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total 47 412 56 515 52 390 72 514 46 440 72 558 47 354 72 473 192 1596 272 2060 28 53 31 112 59 68 80 207 45 52 50 147 35 58 49 142 167 231 210 608 52 188 36 276 44 172 9 225 60 240 25 325 47 168 21 236 203 768 91 1062 109 85 68 262 148 94 70 312 121 97 76 294 119 77 71 267 497 353 285 1135 1165 1258 1324 1118 4865 Grand Total 408 3092 523 4023 325 410 389 1124 410 1444 161 2015 916 693 531 2140 9302 Apprch % 10.1 76.9 13 28.9 36.5 34.6 20.3 71.7 8 42.8 32.4 24.8 Total % 4.4 33.2 5.6 43.2 3.5 4.4 4.2 12.1 4.4 15.5 1.7 21.7 9.8 7.5 5.7 23 Passenger vehicles 399 3037 517 3953 323 406 383 1112 403 1419 160 1982 902 684 527 2113 9160 % Passenger Vehicles 97.8 98.2 98.9 98.3 99.4 99 98.5 98.9 98.3 98.3 99.4 98.4 98.5 98.7 99.2 98.7 98.5 Large 2 Axle Vehicles 9 39 4 52 2 4 6 12 7 17 1 25 14 9 4 27 116 %Lae2Axle Vehicles 2.2 1.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 1 1.5 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.3 1.2 3 Axle Vehicles 0 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 % 3 Axle Vehicles 0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 4+ Axle Trucks 0 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 % 4+ Axle Trucks 0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Left I Thru I Right 1 App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM Int. Total 04:45 PM 48 428 59 535 62 54 53 169 43 189 21 253 102 84 61 247 1204 05:00 PM 47 412 56 515 28 53 31 112 52 188 36 276 109 85 68 262 1165 05:15 PM 52 390 72 514 59 68 80 207 44 172 9 225 148 94 70 312 1258 05:30 PM 46 440 72 558 45 52 50 147 60 240 25 325 121 97 76 294 1324 Total Volume 193 1670 259 2122 194 227 214 635 199 789 91 1079 480 360 275 1115 4951 % App. Total 9.1 78.7 12.2 30.6 35.7 33.7 18.4 73.1 8.4 43 32.3 24.7 PHF .928 .949 .899 .951 .782 .835 .669 .767 .829 .822 .632 .830 .811 .928 .905 .893 .935 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 co .c co La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1483 1 21221 1 1 2591 16701 1931 Right TI•u Left 36051 Peak Hour Data I North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PfV1 Passenger Vehicles Large 2 Axle Vehicles 3 Axle Vehicles 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1991 7891 911 1 21391 1 10791 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 32181 C r 1-5 A V A CD A Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 05:00 PM +0 mins. 48 428 59 535 42 43 70 155 43 189 21 253 109 85 68 262 +15 mins. 47 412 56 515 62 54 53 169 52 188 36 276 148 94 70 312 +30 mins. 52 390 72 514 28 53 31 112 44 172 9 225 121 97 76 294 +45 mins. 46 440 72 558 59 68 80 207 60 240 25 325 119 77 71 267 Total Volume 193 1670 259 2122 191 218 234 643 199 789 91 1079 497 353 285 1135 % App. Total 9.1 78.7 12.2 29.7 33.9 36.4 18.4 73.1 8.4 43.8 31.1 25.1 PHF .928 .949 .899 .951 .770 .801 .731 .777 .829 .822 .632 .830 .840 .910 .938 .909 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 59 341 63 463 23 39 25 87 50 155 10 215 109 84 62 255 1020 04:15 PM 59 356 67 482 30 42 30 102 52 161 17 230 112 77 57 246 1060 04:30 PM 46 351 59 456 42 42 69 153 57 160 22 239 91 92 64 247 1095 04:45 PM 46 415 59 520 62 54 52 168 43 184 21 248 102 84 60 246 1182 Total 210 1463 248 1921 157 177 176 510 202 660 70 932 414 337 243 994 4357 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 47 406 55 508 51 388 72 511 44 432 70 546 47 348 72 467 189 1574 269 2032 399 3037 517 3953 10.1 76.8 13.1 4.4 33.2 5.6 43.2 28 52 30 110 58 67 80 205 45 52 49 146 35 58 48 141 166 229 207 602 323 406 383 1112 29 36.5 34.4 3.5 4.4 4.2 12.1 52 184 36 272 44 169 9 222 59 239 24 322 46 167 21 234 201 759 90 1050 403 1419 160 1982 20.3 71.6 8.1 4.4 15.5 1.7 21.6 109 84 68 261 145 93 70 308 119 94 75 288 115 76 71 262 488 347 284 1119 902 684 527 2113 42.7 32.4 24.9 9.8 7.5 5.8 23.1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04.45 PM 1151 1246 1302 1104 4803 9160 Int. Total 04:45 PM 46 415 59 520 62 54 52 168 43 184 21 248 102 84 60 246 1182 05:00 PM 47 406 55 508 28 52 30 110 52 184 36 272 109 84 68 261 1151 05:15 PM 51 388 72 511 58 67 80 205 44 169 9 222 145 93 70 308 1246 05:30 PM 44 432 70 546 45 52 49 146 59 239 24 322 119 94 75 288 1302 Total Volume 188 1641 256 2085 193 225 211 629 198 776 90 1064 475 355 273 1103 4881 % App. Total 9 78.7 12.3 30.7 35.8 33.5 18.6 72.9 8.5 43.1 32.2 24.8 PHF .922 .950 .889 .955 .778 .840 .659 .767 .839 .812 .625 .826 .819 .944 .910 .895 .937 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 N CO CO co r- M N NJ .c CL La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1462 1 20851 1 1 2561 16411 1881 Right TI•u Left 35471 Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 Passenger Vehicles 1-5 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 1 1981 7761 901 1 21071 1 10641 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 31711 ccrr W CD N.) Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 46 415 59 520 62 54 52 168 43 184 21 248 102 84 60 246 +15 mins. 47 406 55 508 28 52 30 110 52 184 36 272 109 84 68 261 +30 mins. 51 388 72 511 58 67 80 205 44 169 9 222 145 93 70 308 +45 mins. 44 432 70 546 45 52 49 146 59 239 24 322 119 94 75 288 Total Volume 188 1641 256 2085 193 225 211 629 198 776 90 1064 475 355 273 1103 % App. Total 9 78.7 12.3 30.7 35.8 33.5 18.6 72.9 8.5 43.1 32.2 24.8 PHF .922 .950 .889 .955 .778 .840 .659 .767 .839 .812 .625 .826 .819 .944 .910 .895 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Larae 2 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 1 3 0 2 9 5 4 5 0 1 0 0 10 9 4 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 5 4 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 6 0 4 1 21 13 16 14 Total 6 23 1 30 1 2 3 6 5 12 0 17 5 3 3 11 64 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 2 1 3 1 2 0 3 2 6 2 10 0 6 0 6 3 16 3 22 9 39 4 52 17.3 75 7.7 7.8 33.6 3.4 44.8 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 6 2 4 6 12 16.7 33.3 50 1.7 3.4 5.2 10.3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 2 2 5 1 8 7 17 1 25 28 68 4 6 14.7 0.9 21.6 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 2 3 1 6 4 1 0 5 9 6 1 16 14 9 4 27 51.9 33.3 14.8 12.1 7.8 3.4 23.3 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 8 10 20 14 52 116 Int. Total 04:45 PM 2 5 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 14 05:00 PM 0 2 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 8 05:15 PM 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 10 05:30 PM 2 6 2 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 6 20 Total Volume 5 15 3 23 1 2 3 6 1 9 1 11 5 5 2 12 52 % App. Total 21.7 65.2 13 16.7 33.3 50 9.1 81.8 9.1 41.7 41.7 16.7 PHF .625 .625 .375 .575 .250 .500 .750 .750 .250 .450 .250 .550 .417 .417 .500 .500 .650 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 CO N N N co La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 23 1 1 31 151 51 Right T�u Left 171 40 Peak Hour Data I L North = 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P1\11 I—g Large 2 Axle Vehicles H 1-% 4-1 T �► LeftThruRight 11 g 1 1 1 181 1 111 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues 29 w N m Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 2 5 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 +15 mins. 0 2 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 +30 mins. 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 +45 mins. 2 6 2 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 6 Total Volume 5 15 3 23 1 2 3 6 1 9 1 11 5 5 2 12 % App. Total 21.7 65.2 13 16.7 33.3 50 9.1 81.8 9.1 41.7 41.7 16.7 PHF .625 .625 .375 .575 .250 .500 .750 .750 .250 .450 .250 .550 .417 .417 .500 .500 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 3 Axle Vehicles File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 Total 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 3 0 3 0 8 1 9 0 88.9 11.1 0 61.5 7.7 69.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 100 0 0 30.8 0 30.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 3 1 1 0 5 13 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05:00 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .438 .000 .438 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .563 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 71 S 1 1 01 71 01 Right TI•u Left 21 Peak Hour Data North s Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PI�I 3 Axle Vehicles 4-1 T �► LeftOI Thr 2 Right 01 1 1 1 71 I 21 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 4 0 4 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .438 .000 .438 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- 4+ Axle Trucks File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 Total 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 3 0 3 0 8 1 9 0 88.9 11.1 0 61.5 7.7 69.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 100 0 0 30.8 0 30.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Indiana Avenue Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Indiana Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 3 1 1 0 5 13 Int. Total 04:45 PM 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05:00 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .438 .000 .438 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .563 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLSINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1 71 S 1 1 01 71 01 Right TI•u Left 21 Peak Hour Data North s Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P1\11 4+ Axle Trucks 4-1 T �► LeftOI Thr 2 Right 01 1 1 1 71 I 21 Out In Total I a Siarra Avenues r 0 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:45 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 0 4 0 4 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .438 .000 .438 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Vista Terrace Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume File Name : RIVLASBAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Vista Terrace Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Vista Terrace Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 14 116 2 132 0 2 16 18 23 425 3 451 11 0 8 19 620 07:15 AM 12 113 4 129 2 0 13 15 24 363 0 387 19 1 5 25 556 07:30 AM 7 170 1 178 0 1 11 12 29 370 1 400 23 0 4 27 617 07:45 AM 11 248 3 262 3 2 13 18 15 311 1 327 24 3 6 33 640 Total 44 647 10 701 5 5 53 63 91 1469 5 1565 77 4 23 104 2433 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 22 329 5 356 26 198 0 224 21 160 1 182 16 149 5 170 85 836 11 932 129 1483 21 1633 7.9 90.8 1.3 2.5 29.3 0.4 32.2 3 1 16 20 1 1 12 14 1 2 15 18 0 1 7 8 5 5 50 60 10 10 103 123 8.1 8.1 83.7 0.2 0.2 2 2.4 30 361 1 392 16 381 1 398 36 392 0 428 18 285 1 304 100 1419 3 1522 191 2888 8 3087 6.2 93.6 0.3 3.8 57 0.2 60.9 17 1 9 27 24 0 11 35 21 0 10 31 17 1 7 25 79 2 37 118 156 6 60 222 70.3 2.7 27 3.1 0.1 1.2 4.4 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Vista Terrace Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Vista Terrace Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Left I Thru I Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM 795 671 659 507 2632 5065 Int. Total 07:45 AM 11 248 3 262 3 2 13 18 15 311 1 327 24 3 6 33 640 08:00 AM 22 329 5 356 3 1 16 20 30 361 1 392 17 1 9 27 795 08:15 AM 26 198 0 224 1 1 12 14 16 381 1 398 24 0 11 35 671 08:30 AM 21 160 1 182 1 2 15 18 36 392 0 428 21 0 10 31 659 Total Volume 80 935 9 1024 8 6 56 70 97 1445 3 1545 86 4 36 126 2765 % App. Total 7.8 91.3 0.9 11.4 8.6 80 6.3 93.5 0.2 68.3 3.2 28.6 PHF .769 .710 .450 .719 .667 .750 .875 .875 .674 .922 .750 .902 .896 .333 .818 .900 .869 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Vista Terrace Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLASBAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 CO N N co V co La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1587 1 10241 1 1 91 9351 801 Right TI•u Left 26111 Peak Hour Data I North = 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AA{I I—g Total Volume 4-1 T �► Left Thru Right 97I 14451 31 1 1 1 9791 1 15451 Out In Total I a Sierra Avenues 1 25241 r 1-5 W w 0 cn V O C G ru N 5 m m m 0 m Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:00 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 11 248 3 262 3 2 13 18 23 425 3 451 24 3 6 33 +15 mins. 22 329 5 356 3 1 16 20 24 363 0 387 17 1 9 27 +30 mins. 26 198 0 224 1 1 12 14 29 370 1 400 24 0 11 35 +45 mins. 21 160 1 182 1 2 15 18 15 311 1 327 21 0 10 31 Total Volume 80 935 9 1024 8 6 56 70 91 1469 5 1565 86 4 36 126 % App. Total 7.8 91.3 0.9 11.4 8.6 80 5.8 93.9 0.3 68.3 3.2 28.6 PHF .769 .710 .450 .719 .667 .750 .875 .875 .784 .864 .417 .868 .896 .333 .818 .900 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Vista Terrace Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume File Name : RIVLASBPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Vista Terrace Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Vista Terrace Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 29 380 5 414 1 3 6 10 21 189 1 211 24 3 26 53 688 04:15 PM 12 368 1 381 1 0 11 12 13 202 1 216 21 1 25 47 656 04:30 PM 13 457 8 478 0 0 9 9 17 221 0 238 19 4 15 38 763 04:45 PM 29 481 4 514 2 1 7 10 18 206 0 224 13 2 18 33 781 Total 83 1686 18 1787 4 4 33 41 69 818 2 889 77 10 84 171 2888 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 15 470 3 488 21 482 4 507 16 471 3 490 22 425 3 450 74 1848 13 1935 157 3534 31 3722 4.2 94.9 0.8 2.6 58 0.5 61.1 2 1 16 19 1 2 5 8 0 1 9 10 1 2 6 9 4 6 36 46 8 10 69 87 9.2 11.5 79.3 0.1 0.2 1.1 1.4 27 235 1 263 16 207 3 226 25 269 1 295 23 216 1 240 91 927 6 1024 160 1745 8 1913 8.4 91.2 0.4 2.6 28.7 0.1 31.4 19 1 39 59 23 1 22 46 21 1 28 50 15 3 23 41 78 6 112 196 155 16 196 367 42.2 4.4 53.4 2.5 0.3 3.2 6 La Sierra Avenue Southbound Vista Terrace Westbound La Sierra Avenue Northbound Vista Terrace Eastbound Start Time Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru I Right I App. Total Left Thru Right I App. Total Left 1 Thru Right I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM 829 787 845 740 3201 6089 Int. Total 04:45 PM 29 481 4 514 2 1 7 10 18 206 0 224 13 2 18 33 781 05:00 PM 15 470 3 488 2 1 16 19 27 235 1 263 19 1 39 59 829 05:15 PM 21 482 4 507 1 2 5 8 16 207 3 226 23 1 22 46 787 05:30 PM 16 471 3 490 0 1 9 10 25 269 1 295 21 1 28 50 845 Total Volume 81 1904 14 1999 5 5 37 47 86 917 5 1008 76 5 107 188 3242 % App. Total 4.1 95.2 0.7 10.6 10.6 78.7 8.5 91 0.5 40.4 2.7 56.9 PHF .698 .988 .875 .972 .625 .625 .578 .618 .796 .852 .417 .854 .826 .625 .686 .797 .959 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: La Sierra Avenue E/W: Vista Terrace Weather: Clear File Name : RIVLASBPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 Cr) N CO CO 0 co N 0 La Sierra Avenue Out In Total 1030 1 19991 1 1 141 19041 811 Right TI•u Left 30291 Peak Hour Data North 1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P11I Total Volume 4-1 T �► 1 Left 861 Thru 9171 Right 51 1 1 1 20161 1 10081 Out In Total n I a Sierra Aveues 1 30241 r 1-5 V cn cn A V O G Ill 5 m N m 0 m Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Aaoroach Be ins at: 04:45 PM 04:15 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM +0 mins. 29 481 4 514 1 0 11 12 27 235 1 263 19 1 39 59 +15 mins. 15 470 3 488 0 0 9 9 16 207 3 226 23 1 22 46 +30 mins. 21 482 4 507 2 1 7 10 25 269 1 295 21 1 28 50 +45 mins. 16 471 3 490 2 1 16 19 23 216 1 240 15 3 23 41 Total Volume 81 1904 14 1999 5 2 43 50 91 927 6 1024 78 6 112 196 % App. Total 4.1 95.2 0.7 10 4 86 8.9 90.5 0.6 39.8 3.1 57.1 PHF .698 .988 .875 .972 .625 .500 .672 .658 .843 .862 .500 .868 .848 .500 .718 .831 City of Riverside N/S: Metrolink Driveway East E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Metrolink Driveway East Southbound Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume Indiana Ave Westbound Indiana Ave Eastbound File Name : RIVMLINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 Start Time 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Left Right App. Total 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thru Right App. Total 69 8 77 71 7 78 71 3 74 90 0 90 301 18 319 111 0 111 60 1 61 71 0 71 49 0 49 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 100 0 0.2 0.2 291 1 292 592 19 611 96.9 3.1 48.3 1.5 49.8 Left Thru App. Total 2 60 62 1 58 59 1 54 55 0 72 72 4 244 248 1 81 82 2 114 116 0 91 91 0 75 75 3 361 364 7 605 612 1.1 98.9 0.6 49.3 49.9 Metrolink Driveway East Southbound Indiana Ave Westbound Indiana Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 07.45 AM Int. Total 141 137 129 162 569 193 178 162 124 657 1226 Int. Total 07:45 AM 0 0 0 90 0 90 0 72 72 162 08:00 AM 0 0 0 111 0 111 1 81 82 193 08:15 AM 0 1 1 60 1 61 2 114 116 178 08:30 AM 0 0 0 71 0 71 0 91 91 162 Total Volume 0 1 1 332 1 333 3 358 361 695 % App. Total 0 100 99.7 0.3 0.8 99.2 PHF .000 .250 .250 .748 .250 .750 .375 .785 .778 .900 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: Metrolink Driveway East E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVMLINAM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 m M M M m_t .c Metrolink Driveway East Out In Total 1 11 ! 1 1 1 I 11 01 Right Left al Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AAlI Total Volume N co w co 0 d m D co O 91 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 • . __._..___ ___....,�.___.. 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 08:00 AM +0 mins. 0 2 2 71 7 78 1 81 82 +15 mins. 0 0 0 71 3 74 2 114 116 +30 mins. 0 0 0 90 0 90 0 91 91 +45 mins. 0 0 0 111 0 111 0 75 75 Total Volume 0 2 2 343 10 353 3 361 364 % App. Total 0 100 97.2 2.8 0.8 99.2 PHF .000 .250 .250 .773 .357 .795 .375 .792 .784 City of Riverside N/S: Metrolink Driveway East E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear Metrolink Driveway East Southbound Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume Indiana Ave Westbound Indiana Ave Eastbound File Name : RIVMLINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 1 Start Time 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Left Right App. Total 5 7 12 6 15 21 20 8 28 13 7 20 44 37 81 3 5 8 21 15 36 9 7 16 6 9 15 Thru Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 39 36 75 83 73 156 53.2 46.8 4.1 3.6 7.7 Right App. Total 56 1 57 82 3 85 78 2 80 96 2 98 312 8 320 86 2 88 108 3 111 84 3 87 112 1 113 Left 390 9 399 702 17 97.6 2.4 34.7 0.8 719 35.6 Thru App. Total 6 124 130 9 126 135 4 141 145 7 146 153 26 537 563 3 145 148 9 142 151 6 153 159 7 118 125 25 558 583 51 1095 1146 4.5 95.5 2.5 54.2 56.7 Metrolink Driveway East Southbound Indiana Ave Westbound Indiana Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Be ins at 04.45 PM Int. Total 199 241 253 271 964 244 298 262 253 1057 2021 Int. Total 04:45 PM 13 7 20 96 2 98 7 146 153 271 05:00 PM 3 5 8 86 2 88 3 145 148 244 05:15 PM 21 15 36 108 3 111 9 142 151 298 05:30 PM 9 7 16 84 3 87 6 153 159 262 Total Volume 46 34 80 374 10 384 25 586 611 1075 % App. Total 57.5 42.5 97.4 2.6 4.1 95.9 PHF .548 .567 .556 .866 .833 .865 .694 .958 .961 .902 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 City of Riverside N/S: Metrolink Driveway East E/W: Indiana Avenue Weather: Clear File Name : RIVMLINPM Site Code : 04215480 Start Date : 9/3/2015 Page No : 2 0 N N co V NJ .c Metrolink Driveway East Out In Total 1 80 I I I I 341 461 Right Left 115I Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P111 3 Total Volume ~c' O A CD N co O W 0 N N D co N Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 • . __._..__.._. ___...,�.___.. 04:30 PM 05:00 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 20 8 28 86 2 88 7 146 153 +15 mins. 13 7 20 108 3 111 3 145 148 +30 mins. 3 5 8 84 3 87 9 142 151 +45 mins. 21 15 36 112 1 113 6 153 159 Total Volume 57 35 92 390 9 399 25 586 611 % App. Total 62 38 97.7 2.3 4.1 95.9 PHF .679 .583 .639 .871 .750 .883 .694 .958 .961 351 Traffic Impact Study I Appendix APPENDIX C: LOS CALCULATION SHEETS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Traffic Impact Study I Appendix EXISTING CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\1_Existing_AM.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 1: Existing2015 AM Peak 11 /6/2015 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.620 16.7 B 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.627 15.8 B 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.619 27.8 C 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.441 17.6 B 5 Grande VistaAPekwy / Indiana Signalized HCM2010 SEBR 0.128 8.9 A 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.000 13.1 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 16.7 B 0.620 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 266 0 628 532 1569 969 210 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 266 0 628 532 1569 969 210 Peak Hour Factor 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 „„„ 0.9550 0.9550 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 70 0 164 139 411 254 55 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 279 0 658 557 1643 1015 220 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 33 0 0 0 26 57 31 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 u 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 17 17 17 14 36 18 18 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.59 0.29 0.29 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.35 0.22 0.15 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 462 412 412 713 2726 1370 428 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 18.88 20.23 20.23 22.20 8.10 19.42 17.90 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.28 3.59 3.59 1.91 0.22 0.81 0.96 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.60 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.60 0.74 0.51 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 20.16 23.82 23.82 24.11 8.32 20.22 18.85 Lane Group LOS C C C C A C B Critical Lane Group no yes ..s 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.27 4.34 4.34 3.64 3.55 4.02 2.46 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 81.77 108.39 108.39 91.02 88.69 100.40 61.49 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.89 7.75 7.75 6.55 6.39 7.23 4.43 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 147.18 193.76 193.76 163.83 159.64 180.72 110.67 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 20.16 23.82 23.82 24.11 8.32 20.22 18.85 Movement LOS C C C C A C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 22.73 12.32 19.98 Approach LOS C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16 71 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.620 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s — _I iss 1_1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 15.8 B 0.627 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 ÷ r* 1 1 1 r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 481 6 280 0 0 1584 412 258 978 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 481 6 280 1584 412 258 978 Peak Hour Factor 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 i.u--- - - - - 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 128 2 74 420 109 68 260 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 511 6 297 1682 437 274 1038 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 80 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 24 J 0 0 43 13 56 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 14 14 14 28 28 8 40 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.64 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.36 0.30 0.09 0.22 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1605 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 380 374 339 2083 650 401 2972 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.06 22.09 22.28 14.89 13.60 25.98 5.24 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.73 2.83 3.66 0.78 1.96 2.07 0.07 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.81 0.67 0.68 0.35 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 24.78 24.92 25.95 15.67 15.56 28.05 5.31 Lane Group LOS C C C B B C A Critical Lane Group no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.76 3.74 3.63 5.99 4.51 1.94 1.51 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 93.89 93.46 90.70 149.69 112.76 48.57 37.86 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.76 6.73 6.53 10.00 7.99 3.50 2.73 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 169.01 168.23 163.27 250.01 199.83 87.43 68.15 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 24.85 24.92 25.85 15.67 15.56 28.05 5.31 Movement LOS C C C B B C A d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 25.20 15.65 10.06 Approach LOS C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 15 75 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.627 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 Ring 2 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 .SG: I la M.1' MI 1.- Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 27.8 C 0.619 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 602 272 151 102 176 106 307 1321 78 92 892 224 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 602 272 151 102 176 106 307 1321 78 92 892 224 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 162 73 41 27 47 28 82 355 21 25 240 60 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 647 292 162 110 189 114 330 1419 84 99 958 241 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 40 45 17 22 0 24 57 11 44 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 19 11 11 16 8 8 13 27 27 6 20 20 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.24 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.26 0.26 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.30 0.06 0.03 0.21 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 775 479 214 651 185 157 549 1661 518 256 1229 384 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 27.36 30.49 31.23 24.94 32.31 32.94 29.11 22.73 16.77 33.29 26.04 24.79 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.47 1.26 5.40 0.12 2.65 6.21 1.06 1.35 0.15 0.96 1.11 1.70 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.61 0.76 0.17 0.56 0.72 0.60 0.85 0.16 0.39 0.78 0.63 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 29.82 31.74 36.63 25.06 34.97 39.14 30.17 24.07 16.92 34.25 27.14 26.49 Lane Group LOS C C D C C D C C B C C C Critical Lane Group no no , US y..s no yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.59 2.51 3.08 0.80 1.90 2.25 2.77 7.50 0.98 0.88 5.23 3.85 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 139.75 62.86 77.10 20.10 47.58 56.20 69.23 187.60 24.43 22.00 130.69 96.18 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.47 4.53 5.55 1.45 3.43 4.05 4.98 12.00 1.76 1.58 8.98 6.92 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 236.69 113.15 138.78 36.18 85.65 101.16 124.62 299.91 43.98 39.60 224.43 173.12 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 29.82 31.74 36.63 25.06 34.97 39.14 30.17 24.07 16.92 34.25 27.14 26.49 Movement LOS C C D C C D C C B C C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 31.33 33.09 24.84 27.56 Approach LOS C C C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 27 78 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.619 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mfl2 15s ! I. 06 15s_I I U4 1�s _ l i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.6 B 0.441 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 87 4 37 8 6 57 99 1469 3 81 951 9 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 87 4 37 8 6 57 99 1469 3 81 951 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 25 1 11 2 2 16 28 423 1 23 274 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 100 5 43 9 7 66 114 1690 3 93 1094 10 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 b 11 21 11 21 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 6 5 5 10 18 18 5 12 12 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.25 0.25 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.18 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1632 1454 1663 1454 1629 3256 1708 1629 3256 1700 c, Capacity [veh/h] 201 179 160 140 341 1164 611 167 816 426 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.51 19.77 20.57 21.34 16.77 14.19 14.19 21.31 17.12 17.12 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.10 0.69 0.27 2.45 0.57 1.08 2.05 2.88 1.24 2.36 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.52 0.24 0.10 0.47 0.33 0.77 0.77 0.56 0.72 0.72 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 22.61 20.46 20.84 23.80 17.34 15.27 16.24 24.19 18.36 19.48 Lane Group LOS C C C C B B B C B B Critical Lane Group no nc, yes no no yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.15 0.44 0.17 0.76 1.04 3.86 4.22 1.07 2.84 3.10 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 28.84 11.08 4.18 18.99 26.01 96.54 105.40 26.81 71.09 77.58 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.08 0.80 0.30 1.37 1.87 6.95 7.58 1.93 5.12 5.59 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 51.91 19.95 7.52 34.18 46.81 173.78 189.58 48.26 127.97 139.64 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 22.61 22.61 20.46 20.84 20.84 23.80 17.34 15.60 16.24 24.19 18.73 19.48 Movement LOS C C C C C C B B B C B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 21.99 23.22 15.74 19.25 Approach LOS C C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 60 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.441 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 1 5s 1 1 1�J 1 1 5s 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 8.9 A 0.128 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 19 357 46 9 320 4 33 0 7 2 6 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 19 357 46 9 320 4 33 0 7 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 5 99 13 2 88 1 9 0 2 1 2 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 21 394 51 10 353 4 36 0 8 2 7 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 19 11 19 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 6 6 1 6 6 2 6 6 0 0 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.01 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1615 1629 1710 1700 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 67 432 408 38 402 400 108 414 352 291 22 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 11.60 7.67 7.68 11.95 7.86 7.86 11.11 0.00 7.20 12.44 12.14 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.61 0.52 0.57 3.54 0.43 0.43 1.80 0.00 0.03 0.01 7.92 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.31 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.32 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 14.21 8.19 8.25 15.49 8.29 8.29 12.91 0.00 7.22 12.45 20.06 Lane Group LOS B A A B A A B A A B C Critical Lane Group no yes no to is 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.13 0.46 0.44 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.08 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.19 11.47 11.11 1.91 9.12 9.10 4.61 0.00 0.53 0.22 1.90 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.23 0.83 0.80 0.14 0.66 0.66 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.14 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 5.75 20.64 20.01 3.43 16.42 16.38 8.29 0.00 0.96 0.39 3.42 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.21 8.22 8.25 15.49 8.29 8.29 12.91 0.00 7.22 12.45 20.06 Movement LOS B A A B A A B A A B C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 8.60 8.57 11.87 18.37 Approach LOS A A B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 8.95 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.128 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.1 B 0.000 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 3 364 338 1 0 1 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 3 364 338 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1 101 94 0 0 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 3 404 376 1 0 1 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.03 13.07 9.35 Movement LOS A A A A B A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.06 0.00 9.35 Approach LOS A A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.04 Intersection LOS B Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\2_Existing_PM.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 2: Existing2015 PM Peak 11 /6/2015 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.696 22.4 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NEBR 0.680 21.1 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.780 56.0 E 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.483 18.1 B 5 Grande VistaAPekwy / Indiana Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.206 11.7 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.166 18.8 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 22.4 C 0.696 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 629 1 525 404 1102 1244 346 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 629 1 525 404 1102 1244 346 Peak Hour Factor 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 „ „ 0.9480 0.9480 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 166 0 138 107 291 328 91 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 664 1 554 426 1162 1312 365 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 39 0 0 21 61 40 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 b._ 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 24 24 24 13 43 26 26 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.57 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.13 0.25 0.28 0.25 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1560 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 528 506 471 544 2652 1603 500 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.84 23.17 23.79 29.71 9.27 22.46 21.54 k, delay calibration 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.85 5.35 9.57 2.52 0.11 1.08 3.36 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.77 0.80 0.86 0.78 0.44 0.82 0.73 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 26.68 28.52 33.36 32.24 9.38 23.54 24.90 Lane Group LOS C C C C A C C Critical Lane Group no no ye: 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.62 6.89 7.56 3.72 3.16 6.71 5.71 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 165.39 172.31 188.91 93.00 79.05 167.73 142.73 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.83 11.20 12.06 6.70 5.69 10.96 9.63 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 270.85 279.95 301.61 167.40 142.28 273.93 240.69 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 27.40 28.52 32.07 32.24 9.38 23.54 24.90 Movement LOS C C C C A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 29.52 15.51 23.84 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 22 43 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.696 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 /5s _ 15s I I Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 21.1 C 0.680 Name Approach Northe#astbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration "► r 1I r r r r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 310 3 798 0 0 1168 377 393 1434 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 310 3 798 1168 377 393 1434 Peak Hour Factor 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 i.u--- - - - - 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 80 1 206 302 97 102 371 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 321 3 825 1208 390 406 1483 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 5 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 u.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 45 0 0 43 22 65 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 ...0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 24 24 24 24 24 12 40 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.56 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.13 0.32 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 537 480 480 1565 488 528 2602 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.06 22.49 22.49 21.37 21.63 28.58 10.26 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.07 8.71 8.71 0.83 5.20 2.40 0.20 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.60 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.80 0.77 0.57 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 21.13 31.21 31.21 22.20 26.83 30.98 10.46 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C B Critical Lane Group no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.34 7.18 7.18 5.74 6.21 3.37 4.33 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 108.45 179.52 179.52 143.45 155.30 84.15 108.20 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.75 11.58 11.58 9.67 10.30 6.06 7.74 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 193.85 289.39 289.39 241.66 257.49 151.47 193.49 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 21.13 31.21 31.21 22.20 26.83 30.98 10.46 Movement LOS C C C C C C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 28.38 23.33 14.87 Approach LOS C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 21 13 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.680 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 1 =2 15s j =6 15s =S 15s I i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 56.0 E 0.780 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 483 363 276 195 228 216 200 800 92 196 1699 261 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 483 363 276 195 228 216 200 800 92 196 1699 261 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 129 97 74 52 61 58 53 214 25 52 454 70 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 517 388 295 209 244 231 214 856 98 210 1817 279 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 28 39 16 27 0 14 53 22 61 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 17 21 21 13 16 16 8 20 20 18 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.16 0.12 0.20 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.07 0.39 0.19 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 621 764 341 471 320 272 300 1059 330 657 1584 494 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 34.04 29.32 32.40 34.21 32.11 34.64 38.75 32.26 28.24 29.65 29.10 23.77 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.99 0.52 9.05 0.66 1.19 7.26 3.15 1.52 0.50 0.28 67.96 1.23 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.83 0.51 0.86 0.44 0.50 0.85 0.71 0.81 0.30 0.32 1.15 0.56 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 37.03 29.84 41.45 34.87 33.30 41.90 41.90 33.79 28.73 29.93 97.06 24.99 Lane Group LOS D C D C C D D C C C F C Critical Lane Group no no yes yes no no yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.44 3.54 6.72 2.05 3.08 5.22 2.34 5.75 1.73 1.88 20.57 4.74 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 136.07 88.62 168.04 51.27 76.93 130.48 58.54 143.78 43.24 46.97 514.19 118.52 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.27 6.38 10.97 3.69 5.54 8.97 4.22 9.68 3.11 3.38 30.48 8.31 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 231.73 159.51 274.34 92.29 138.47 224.15 105.38 242.11 77.83 84.54 762.11 207.80 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 37.03 29.84 41.45 34.87 33.30 41.90 41.90 33.79 28.73 29.93 97.06 24.99 Movement LOS D C D C C D D C C C F C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 35.79 37.17 34.85 82.23 Approach LOS D D C F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 56 05 Intersection LOS E Intersection V/C 0.780 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mfl2 15s ! M OG 15s _ Moo 15s MOB 15s I 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.1 B 0.483 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 77 5 109 5 5 38 87 932 5 82 1936 14 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 77 5 109 5 5 38 87 932 5 82 1936 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 20 1 28 1 1 10 23 243 1 21 505 4 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 80 5 114 5 5 40 91 972 5 86 2019 15 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 120 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 0 13 63 19 69 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 7 4 4 5 12 12 15 21 21 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.40 0.40 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.32 0.32 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1633 1454 1668 1454 1629 3256 1705 1629 3256 1702 c, Capacity [veh/h] 205 183 116 101 160 728 381 454 1315 687 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.32 21.93 23.03 23.54 22.77 19.02 19.02 14.52 13.83 13.84 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.33 3.47 0.32 2.50 3.15 1.39 2.63 0.20 1.13 2.62 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.41 0.62 0.09 0.40 0.57 0.72 0.72 0.19 0.79 0.80 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 22.66 25.40 23.34 26.03 25.92 20.41 21.65 14.72 14.96 16.46 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C B B B Critical Lane Group u yes no yes no no no , 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.97 1.40 0.12 0.51 1.14 2.82 3.08 0.72 4.71 5.22 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 24.16 35.11 2.96 12.81 28.41 70.38 76.99 18.09 117.87 130.50 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.74 2.53 0.21 0.92 2.05 5.07 5.54 1.30 8.28 8.97 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 43.49 63.20 5.33 23.07 51.13 126.68 138.58 32.56 206.90 224.18 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 22.66 22.66 25.40 23.34 23.34 26.03 25.92 20.83 21.65 14.72 15.47 16.46 Movement LOS C C C C C C C C C B F B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 24.23 25.50 21.35 15.44 Approach LOS C C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 11 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.483 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 i 1MI 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 11.7 B 0.206 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 63 537 24 13 382 9 18 0 11 53 229 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 63 537 24 13 382 9 18 0 11 53 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 150 7 4 107 3 5 0 3 15 64 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 70 600 27 15 427 10 20 0 12 59 256 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 59 11 51 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 3 7 7 3 6 6 1 8 8 3 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.09 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1676 1629 1710 1690 1629 1710 1454 1296 c, Capacity [veh/h] 174 401 393 150 375 371 61 457 388 285 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 12.30 10.05 10.05 12.28 9.87 9.87 13.84 0.00 7.99 14.43 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.50 1.40 1.43 0.29 0.71 0.72 3.05 0.00 0.03 0.35 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.40 0.59 0.59 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.21 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 13.80 11.45 11.48 12.57 10.58 10.60 16.89 0.00 8.03 14.78 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B B A A B Critical Lane Group no no to nc yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.40 1.08 1.07 0.08 0.66 0.65 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.34 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 9.88 27.05 26.64 2.02 16.46 16.36 3.81 0.00 1.03 8.47 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.71 1.95 1.92 0.15 1.19 1.18 0.27 0.00 0.07 0.61 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 17.78 48.69 47.95 3.63 29.63 29.44 6.87 0.00 1.85 15.24 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 13.80 11.46 11.48 12.57 10.59 10.60 16.89 0.00 8.03 14.78 0.00 Movement LOS B B B B B B B A A B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 11.77 10.68 13.57 14.78 Approach LOS B B B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 11 65 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.206 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 �l 15s I 15s MI _I i 15s — - 15s I I J�� 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.8 C 0.166 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 25 596 380 10 47 35 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 25 596 380 10 47 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 7 165 105 3 13 10 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 28 661 421 11 52 39 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.17 0.05 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.24 18.80 9.76 Movement LOS A A A A C A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.15 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 3.86 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.33 0.00 14 93 Approach LOS A A B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.31 Intersection LOS C Traffic Impact Study I Appendix OPENING YEAR 2016 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\3_0pening Without Project_AM.pdf Scenario 3: Opening Without Project AM Peak 11 /6/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.633 17.3 B 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.640 16.2 B 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.631 28.5 C 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.450 17.8 B 5 Grande VistaAPekwy / Indiana Signalized HCM2010 SEBR 0.130 9.0 A 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.000 13.2 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.3 B 0.633 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 271 0 640 543 1600 988 214 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 271 0 640 543 1600 988 214 Peak Hour Factor 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 „„„ 0.9550 0.9550 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 71 0 168 142 419 259 56 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 284 0 670 569 1675 1035 224 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 47 J 0 0 0 38 83 45 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 L. 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 18 18 14 37 19 19 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.59 0.30 0.30 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.36 0.22 0.15 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 465 415 415 720 2736 1380 431 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 19.49 20.91 20.91 22.93 8.38 20.08 18.46 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.30 3.74 3.74 1.99 0.22 0.84 0.97 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.61 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.61 0.75 0.52 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 20.78 24.65 24.65 24.92 8.61 20.92 19.44 Lane Group LOS C C C C A C B Critical Lane Group yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.47 4.61 4.61 3.88 3.83 4.29 2.61 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 86.82 115.36 115.36 97.10 95.84 107.17 65.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.25 8.14 8.14 6.99 6.90 7.68 4.70 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 156.28 203.44 203.44 174.77 172.51 192.06 117.53 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 20.78 24.65 24.65 24.92 8.61 20.92 19.44 Movement LOS C C C C A C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.50 12.74 20.65 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 28 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.633 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mo2 -a 1 I .106 . 15s 11 i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 16.2 B 0.640 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 ÷ r 1 1 1 r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 491 6 286 0 0 1616 420 263 998 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 491 6 286 1616 420 263 998 Peak Hour Factor 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 i.u--- - - - - 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 130 2 76 429 111 70 265 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 521 6 304 1715 446 279 1059 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 33 0 0 60 17 77 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 15 15 15 28 28 8 40 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.64 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.31 0.09 0.23 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1605 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 386 380 344 2080 649 404 2969 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.41 22.44 22.67 15.41 14.04 26.52 5.41 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.72 2.84 3.75 0.87 2.32 2.11 0.07 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.69 0.69 0.36 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 25.13 25.28 26.42 16.28 16.37 28.63 5.48 Lane Group LOS C C C B B C A Critical Lane Group no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.91 3.90 3.81 6.38 4.84 2.03 1.62 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 97.87 97.52 95.31 159.46 120.90 50.74 40.54 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.05 7.02 6.86 10.52 8.44 3.65 2.92 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 176.17 175.53 171.56 263.00 211.06 91.33 72.97 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 25.20 25.28 26.32 16.28 16.37 28.63 5.48 Movement LOS C C C B B C A d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 25.60 16.29 10.31 Approach LOS C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16 23 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.640 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 /5s _ 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 28.5 C 0.631 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 614 277 154 104 179 108 313 1347 79 94 910 228 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 614 277 154 104 179 108 313 1347 79 94 910 228 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 165 74 41 28 48 29 84 362 21 25 244 61 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 660 298 165 112 192 116 336 1447 85 101 977 245 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 80 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 21 28 12 19 0 15 29 11 25 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 19 12 12 16 8 8 13 28 28 6 21 21 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.27 0.27 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.31 0.06 0.03 0.21 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 785 484 216 659 187 159 541 1666 520 253 1242 388 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 27.87 31.12 31.89 25.34 33.00 33.65 30.00 23.35 17.09 34.11 26.54 25.23 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.54 1.28 5.52 0.12 2.68 6.34 1.17 1.50 0.15 1.02 1.14 1.71 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.62 0.76 0.17 0.57 0.73 0.62 0.87 0.16 0.40 0.79 0.63 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 30.41 32.40 37.41 25.46 35.68 39.98 31.17 24.85 17.24 35.13 27.68 26.94 Lane Group LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C Critical Lane Group no no no ,..� no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.86 2.63 3.22 0.84 1.98 2.34 2.91 7.93 1.01 0.92 5.48 4.01 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 146.40 65.81 80.53 20.94 49.57 58.60 72.85 198.26 25.36 23.07 136.95 100.17 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.82 4.74 5.80 1.51 3.57 4.22 5.25 12.55 1.83 1.66 9.32 7.21 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 245.61 118.45 144.95 37.68 89.23 105.49 131.13 313.73 45.65 41.53 232.92 180.31 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 30.41 32.40 37.41 25.46 35.68 39.98 31.17 24.85 17.24 35.13 27.68 26.94 Movement LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 31.96 33.74 25.64 28.11 Approach LOS C C C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 28 45 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.631 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s 1 1.5s 1 5s I Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.8 B 0.450 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 89 4 37 8 6 58 101 1499 3 83 970 9 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 89 4 37 8 6 58 101 1499 3 83 970 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 26 1 11 2 2 17 29 431 1 24 279 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 102 5 43 9 7 67 116 1725 3 96 1116 10 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 b 11 21 11 21 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 6 5 5 11 18 18 5 13 13 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.25 0.25 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.19 0.19 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1632 1454 1663 1454 1629 3256 1708 1629 3256 1700 c, Capacity [veh/h] 199 178 160 140 345 1180 619 168 827 432 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.88 20.11 20.88 21.68 16.94 14.29 14.29 21.63 17.30 17.30 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.23 0.70 0.27 2.53 0.57 1.10 2.08 3.02 1.26 2.39 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.54 0.24 0.10 0.48 0.34 0.77 0.77 0.57 0.73 0.73 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.11 20.80 21.15 24.21 17.51 15.39 16.37 24.65 18.56 19.69 Lane Group LOS C C C C B B B C B B Critical Lane Group no no yes no yes yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.20 0.45 0.17 0.79 1.08 4.01 4.38 1.13 2.96 3.23 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 30.08 11.31 4.26 19.66 26.90 100.28 109.44 28.26 73.94 80.64 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.17 0.81 0.31 1.42 1.94 7.22 7.81 2.03 5.32 5.81 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 54.15 20.35 7.66 35.39 48.41 180.51 195.22 50.86 133.09 145.16 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.11 23.11 20.80 21.15 21.15 24.21 17.51 15.72 16.37 24.65 18.94 19.69 Movement LOS C C C C C C B B B C B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 22.45 23.62 15.86 19.49 Approach LOS C C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 79 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.450 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s ll 1I3. 1 1 13 I 1 1 I I 'E.a las l!9:1 $ 195 I Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 9.0 A 0.130 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 20 364 47 9 327 4 33 0 7 2 6 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 20 364 47 9 327 4 33 0 7 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 100 13 2 90 1 9 0 2 1 2 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 402 52 10 361 4 36 0 8 2 7 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 19 11 19 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 6 6 1 6 6 2 6 6 0 0 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.01 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1615 1629 1710 1700 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 70 433 409 42 404 402 108 412 351 290 22 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 11.62 7.71 7.72 11.95 7.88 7.88 11.16 0.00 7.24 12.49 12.19 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.53 0.54 0.58 2.87 0.44 0.44 1.80 0.00 0.03 0.01 7.94 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.32 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 14.14 8.25 8.30 14.81 8.32 8.32 12.96 0.00 7.27 12.50 20.13 Lane Group LOS B A A B A A B A A B C Critical Lane Group no no yes no no lo is o 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.13 0.47 0.46 0.07 0.38 0.37 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.08 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.31 11.84 11.46 1.81 9.39 9.37 4.63 0.00 0.54 0.22 1.91 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.24 0.85 0.83 0.13 0.68 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.14 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 5.95 21.31 20.64 3.25 16.90 16.86 8.34 0.00 0.97 0.40 3.43 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.14 8.27 8.30 14.81 8.32 8.32 12.96 0.00 7.27 12.50 20.13 Movement LOS B A A B A A B A A B C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 8.65 8.57 11.92 18.44 Approach LOS A A B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 8.97 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.130 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 J — —I JiY 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.2 B 0.000 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 3 371 344 1 0 1 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 3 371 344 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1 103 96 0 0 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 3 412 382 1 0 1 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.04 13.19 9.37 Movement LOS A A A A B A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.06 0.00 9.37 Approach LOS A A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.04 Intersection LOS B Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\4_0pening Without Project_PM.pdf Scenario 4: Opening Without Project PM Peak 11 /6/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 WBR 0.710 23.5 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NEBR 0.695 22.2 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.795 62.1 E 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.492 18.4 B 5 Grande VistaAPekwy / Indiana Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.343 15.2 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.174 19.3 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 23.5 C 0.710 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 641 1 536 0 412 1124 1269 353 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 641 1 536 412 1124 1269 353 Peak Hour Factor 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 i.u„„„ „ „ 0.9480 0.9480 „ „ 0.9480 0.9480 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 169 0 141 109 296 335 93 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 676 1 565 435 1186 1339 372 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 u.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 35 0 0 19 55 36 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 ...0 0.0 0.0 b._ 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 25 25 25 13 44 27 27 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.57 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.14 0.25 0.29 0.26 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1560 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 531 509 474 550 2656 1606 501 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 23.54 23.90 24.55 30.62 9.59 23.31 22.33 k, delay calibration 0.20 0.22 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 4.52 6.27 11.16 2.61 0.12 1.20 4.03 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.78 0.81 0.87 0.79 0.45 0.83 0.74 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 28.07 30.17 35.71 33.23 9.70 24.51 26.35 Lane Group LOS C C D C A C C Critical Lane Group no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.09 7.41 8.17 3.94 3.39 7.18 6.15 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 177.31 185.24 204.25 98.59 84.77 179.46 153.70 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 11.46 11.87 12.86 7.10 6.10 11.57 10.21 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 286.50 296.84 321.45 177.46 152.58 289.31 255.36 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 28.88 30.17 34.23 33.23 9.70 24.51 26.35 Movement LOS C C C C A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 31.32 16.02 24.91 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 23 50 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.710 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s iss —J J Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 22.2 C 0.695 Name Approach Northe#astbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration "► r 1I r r r r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 316 3 814 0 0 1192 385 401 1462 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 316 3 814 1192 385 401 1462 Peak Hour Factor 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 i.u--- - - - - 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 82 1 210 308 100 104 378 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 327 3 842 1233 398 415 1512 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 u.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 41 0 0 38 21 59 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 ...0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 25 25 25 25 25 13 42 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.56 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.13 0.32 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 542 484 484 1570 490 533 2607 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.70 23.29 23.29 22.21 22.49 29.57 10.68 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.08 10.34 10.34 0.90 6.35 2.49 0.21 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.60 0.87 0.87 0.79 0.81 0.78 0.58 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 21.79 33.63 33.63 23.11 28.84 32.07 10.88 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C B Critical Lane Group 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.61 7.83 7.83 6.16 6.77 3.59 4.67 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 115.28 195.79 195.79 153.88 169.29 89.73 116.81 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 8.13 12.42 12.42 10.22 11.04 6.46 8.22 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 203.32 310.53 310.53 255.61 275.98 161.52 205.43 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 21.79 33.63 33.63 23.11 28.84 32.07 10.88 Movement LOS C C C C C C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 30.32 24.51 15.44 Approach LOS C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 22 25 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.695 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 i M 15s 1 15s _l Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 62.1 E 0.795 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 492 370 282 198 233 220 204 816 93 199 1733 266 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 492 370 282 198 233 220 204 816 93 199 1733 266 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 132 99 75 53 62 59 55 218 25 53 463 71 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 526 396 302 212 249 235 218 873 99 213 1853 284 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 27 40 15 28 0 14 53 22 61 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 21 21 13 17 17 9 21 21 18 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.07 0.19 0.07 0.07 0.40 0.20 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 629 779 348 473 324 276 303 1074 335 638 1566 489 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 34.34 29.41 32.61 34.60 32.35 34.95 39.17 32.51 28.35 30.49 29.62 24.44 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.03 0.52 9.99 0.67 1.18 7.35 3.19 1.55 0.49 0.31 84.07 1.45 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.51 0.87 0.45 0.50 0.85 0.72 0.81 0.30 0.33 1.18 0.58 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 37.37 29.92 42.60 35.27 33.54 42.30 42.36 34.06 28.84 30.80 113.69 25.89 Lane Group LOS D C D D C D D C C C F C Critical Lane Group no no yes yes yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.61 3.65 7.05 2.11 3.17 5.38 2.42 5.94 1.76 1.95 22.83 4.97 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 140.28 91.30 176.17 52.71 79.19 134.45 60.41 148.58 44.07 48.80 570.71 124.32 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.50 6.57 11.40 3.80 5.70 9.18 4.35 9.94 3.17 3.51 33.97 8.63 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 237.40 164.35 285.01 94.88 142.54 229.53 108.74 248.54 79.32 87.84 849.24 215.75 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 37.37 29.92 42.60 35.27 33.54 42.30 42.36 34.06 28.84 30.80 113.69 25.89 Movement LOS D C D D C D D C C C F C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 36.25 37.52 35.15 95.56 Approach LOS D D D F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 62 10 Intersection LOS E Intersection V/C 0.795 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mc MOG . 15s u Moo 15s MOB 15s J Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.4 B 0.492 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 79 5 111 5 5 38 89 951 5 84 1975 15 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 79 5 111 5 5 38 89 951 5 84 1975 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 21 1 29 1 1 10 23 248 1 22 515 4 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 82 5 116 5 5 40 93 992 5 88 2059 16 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 0 12 55 17 60 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 7 4 4 5 12 12 15 22 22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.41 0.41 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.33 0.33 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1633 1454 1668 1454 1629 3256 1705 1629 3256 1701 c, Capacity [veh/h] 203 181 115 101 160 737 386 458 1333 696 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.70 22.33 23.37 23.88 23.11 19.22 19.22 14.64 13.91 13.91 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.42 3.74 0.32 2.53 3.29 1.41 2.66 0.20 1.15 2.95 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.43 0.64 0.09 0.40 0.58 0.73 0.73 0.19 0.80 0.80 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.12 26.07 23.69 26.41 26.40 20.63 21.88 14.84 15.06 16.87 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C B B B Critical Lane Group yes no yes no no no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.01 1.46 0.12 0.52 1.18 2.92 3.20 0.75 4.89 5.47 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 25.27 36.62 3.01 13.03 29.60 73.07 79.90 18.78 122.25 136.68 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.82 2.64 0.22 0.94 2.13 5.26 5.75 1.35 8.52 9.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 45.49 65.92 5.42 23.46 53.27 131.52 143.82 33.81 212.91 232.55 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.12 23.12 26.07 23.69 23.69 26.41 26.40 21.05 21.88 14.84 15.67 16.87 Movement LOS C C C C C C C C C B F B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 24.81 25.87 21.60 15.64 Approach LOS C C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 35 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.492 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s SG 17z 1 w ISG 5 1. ',SG. 14s .SG• 1 k I _ SG, 1( L ISG' ff 5s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 15.2 B 0.343 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 64 548 25 13 390 9 19 0 11 54 233 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 64 548 25 13 390 9 19 0 11 54 233 Peak Hour Factor 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 153 7 4 109 3 5 0 3 15 65 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 72 612 28 15 436 10 21 0 12 60 260 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 56 11 48 b 11 63 52 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 4 8 8 3 7 7 1 14 14 8 8 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.23 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.18 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1675 1629 1710 1691 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 166 369 362 117 318 314 62 651 553 437 337 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 15.27 12.96 12.96 15.72 13.19 13.19 16.96 0.00 7.00 12.64 12.99 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.79 1.99 2.04 0.49 1.17 1.19 3.20 0.00 0.02 0.14 3.75 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.43 0.66 0.66 0.13 0.49 0.49 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.77 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.06 14.95 15.00 16.21 14.36 14.38 20.16 0.00 7.01 12.78 16.74 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B C A A B B Critical Lane Group no yes no to 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.54 1.61 1.58 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.35 1.87 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 13.56 40.19 39.56 2.82 25.12 24.96 4.96 0.00 1.07 8.76 46.86 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.98 2.89 2.85 0.20 1.81 1.80 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.63 3.37 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 24.41 72.35 71.20 5.07 45.22 44.93 8.93 0.00 1.92 15.77 84.34 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.06 14.98 15.00 16.21 14.37 14.38 20.16 0.00 7.01 12.78 16.74 Movement LOS B B B B B B C A A B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 15.25 14.45 15.38 16.00 Approach LOS B B B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 15 24 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.343 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mo2 -a 1 WO4 15s I MOG 15s I nag 15s I 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 19.3 C 0.174 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 26 608 388 10 48 35 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 26 608 388 10 48 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 7 169 108 3 13 10 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 29 674 430 11 53 39 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.17 0.05 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.27 19.31 9.80 Movement LOS A A A A C A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.16 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.51 3.89 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.34 0.00 15 28 Approach LOS A A C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.33 Intersection LOS C Traffic Impact Study I Appendix OPENING YEAR 2016 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\5_0pening With Project_AM.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 5: Opening With Project AM Peak 12/11/2015 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.633 17.3 B 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.641 16.3 B 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.636 28.7 C 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.450 17.8 B 5 Grande VistAPewy /Indiana Signalized HCM2010 SEBR 0.132 9.1 A 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 NEBL 0.131 5.6 A 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.002 12.9 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.3 B 0.633 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 275 2 640 544 1601 989 214 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 275 2 640 544 1601 989 214 Peak Hour Factor 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 „„„ 0.9550 0.9550 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 72 1 168 142 419 259 56 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 288 2 670 570 1676 1036 224 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 47 J 0 0 0 38 83 45 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 L. 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 18 18 14 37 19 19 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.59 0.30 0.30 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.36 0.22 0.15 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 465 415 415 721 2737 1380 431 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 19.58 20.94 20.94 22.97 8.39 20.12 18.49 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.35 3.74 3.74 1.99 0.22 0.84 0.97 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.62 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.61 0.75 0.52 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 20.92 24.69 24.69 24.96 8.62 20.96 19.47 Lane Group LOS C C C C A C B Critical Lane Group ..s 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.54 4.62 4.62 3.90 3.85 4.30 2.62 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 88.58 115.60 115.60 97.49 96.13 107.54 65.43 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.38 8.15 8.15 7.02 6.92 7.70 4.71 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 159.45 203.77 203.77 175.47 173.03 192.57 117.78 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 20.92 24.69 24.69 24.96 8.62 20.96 19.47 Movement LOS C C C C A C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.56 12.76 20.69 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 32 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.633 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mo2 -a 1 I .106 . 15s 11 i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 16.3 B 0.641 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 ÷ r* 1 1 1 r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 491 6 289 0 0 1618 422 263 1003 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 491 6 289 1618 422 263 1003 Peak Hour Factor 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 i.u--- - - - - 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 130 2 77 429 112 70 266 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 521 6 307 1718 448 279 1065 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 33 0 0 60 17 77 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 15 15 15 28 28 8 40 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.64 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.31 0.09 0.23 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1603 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 387 381 345 2079 649 404 2967 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.43 22.47 22.70 15.47 14.11 26.59 5.45 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.72 2.84 3.76 0.88 2.40 2.12 0.07 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.83 0.69 0.69 0.36 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 25.15 25.31 26.47 16.35 16.51 28.70 5.52 Lane Group LOS C C C B B C A Critical Lane Group no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.94 3.92 3.84 6.42 4.89 2.04 1.64 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 98.41 98.05 95.97 160.52 122.36 50.88 41.09 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.09 7.06 6.91 10.58 8.52 3.66 2.96 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 177.14 176.50 172.75 264.42 213.07 91.59 73.97 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 25.22 25.31 26.35 16.35 16.51 28.70 5.52 Movement LOS C C C B B C A d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 25.63 16.38 10.33 Approach LOS C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16 29 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.641 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 Ths —1 M•B /5s 1 J _ 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 28.7 C 0.636 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 614 279 154 105 180 111 313 1347 81 102 910 228 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 614 279 154 105 180 111 313 1347 81 102 910 228 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 165 75 41 28 48 30 84 362 22 27 244 61 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 660 300 165 113 193 119 336 1447 87 110 977 245 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 25 31 13 19 0 17 35 11 29 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 19 12 12 16 9 9 13 28 28 6 21 21 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.27 0.27 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.31 0.06 0.03 0.21 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 783 483 216 665 190 162 543 1660 518 257 1240 387 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 28.12 31.40 32.16 25.43 33.13 33.84 30.19 23.63 17.32 34.39 26.80 25.47 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.56 1.31 5.56 0.12 2.57 6.40 1.16 1.55 0.15 1.13 1.15 1.72 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.62 0.76 0.17 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.87 0.17 0.43 0.79 0.63 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 30.68 32.71 37.72 25.55 35.70 40.23 31.35 25.17 17.47 35.51 27.95 27.19 Lane Group LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C Critical Lane Group no no - yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.92 2.68 3.25 0.85 2.01 2.42 2.94 8.03 1.05 1.02 5.54 4.05 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 147.89 66.95 81.28 21.27 50.13 60.61 73.44 200.83 26.32 25.42 138.41 101.22 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.90 4.82 5.85 1.53 3.61 4.36 5.29 12.68 1.89 1.83 9.40 7.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 247.61 120.50 146.30 38.28 90.23 109.09 132.19 317.03 47.37 45.75 234.89 182.20 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 30.68 32.71 37.72 25.55 35.70 40.23 31.35 25.17 17.47 35.51 27.95 27.19 Movement LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 32.25 33.90 25.93 28.43 Approach LOS C C C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 28 75 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.636 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 SG 3 E1 I 15s SG 7 13e i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.8 B 0.450 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 89 4 37 8 6 58 101 1501 3 83 970 9 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 89 4 37 8 6 58 101 1501 3 83 970 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 26 1 11 2 2 17 29 432 1 24 279 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 102 5 43 9 7 67 116 1727 3 96 1116 10 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 b 11 21 11 21 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 6 5 5 11 18 18 5 13 13 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.25 0.25 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.19 0.19 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1632 1454 1663 1454 1629 3256 1708 1629 3256 1700 c, Capacity [veh/h] 199 178 160 140 345 1181 619 168 827 432 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.89 20.12 20.90 21.70 16.94 14.29 14.29 21.65 17.31 17.31 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.24 0.70 0.27 2.53 0.57 1.10 2.08 3.02 1.26 2.39 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.54 0.24 0.10 0.48 0.34 0.77 0.77 0.57 0.73 0.73 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.13 20.82 21.17 24.23 17.51 15.39 16.37 24.67 18.57 19.71 Lane Group LOS C C C C B B B C B B Critical Lane Group no no yes no yes yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.20 0.45 0.17 0.79 1.08 4.02 4.38 1.13 2.96 3.23 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 30.11 11.31 4.26 19.67 26.90 100.45 109.62 28.28 74.00 80.71 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.17 0.81 0.31 1.42 1.94 7.23 7.82 2.04 5.33 5.81 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 54.20 20.37 7.67 35.41 48.42 180.81 195.47 50.90 133.20 145.28 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.13 23.13 20.82 21.17 21.17 24.23 17.51 15.73 16.37 24.67 18.95 19.71 Movement LOS C C C C C C B B B C B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 22.47 23.64 15.86 19.50 Approach LOS C C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 80 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.450 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s 1 1 M5s = 5s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 9.1 A 0.132 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 20 376 47 9 391 4 33 0 7 2 0 6 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 20 376 47 9 391 4 33 0 7 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 ,- 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 104 13 2 108 1 9 0 2 1 2 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 415 52 10 432 4 36 0 8 2 7 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 49 11 49 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 6 6 1 6 6 2 6 6 0 0 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.01 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1617 1629 1710 1702 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 70 431 408 61 422 420 107 408 347 285 22 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 11.80 7.88 7.89 11.85 7.91 7.91 11.34 0.00 7.41 12.69 12.38 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.55 0.57 0.62 1.26 0.51 0.52 1.82 0.00 0.03 0.01 7.98 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.32 0.39 0.39 0.16 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.32 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 14.35 8.45 8.51 13.11 8.42 8.43 13.15 0.00 7.44 12.70 20.37 Lane Group LOS B A A B A A B A A B C Critical Lane Group no yes no to is 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.13 0.51 0.49 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.08 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.37 12.67 12.27 1.51 11.41 11.39 4.74 0.00 0.56 0.23 1.93 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.24 0.91 0.88 0.11 0.82 0.82 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.14 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 6.07 22.80 22.08 2.71 20.54 20.49 8.53 0.00 1.01 0.41 3.48 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.35 8.47 8.51 13.11 8.43 8.43 13.15 0.00 7.44 12.70 20.37 Movement LOS B A A B A A B A A B C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 8.85 8.58 12.11 18.66 Approach LOS A A B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 9.06 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.132 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s I 1 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 5.6 A 0.131 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 15 371 344 1 0 5 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 15 371 344 1 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 103 96 0 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 17 412 382 1 0 6 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fixed time Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protected Permissive Permissive Signal Group 3 8 4 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 13 111 98 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C C L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 9 107 94 94 15 15 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.07 0.82 0.72 0.72 0.12 0.12 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 3256 1710 1708 1629 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 113 2680 1236 1235 188 168 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 56.91 2.33 5.61 5.61 0.00 51.08 k, delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.81 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.40 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.00 0.04 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 59.72 2.45 5.88 5.88 0.00 51.47 Lane Group LOS E A A A A D Critical Lane Group no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.62 0.87 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.19 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 15.40 21.80 40.65 40.66 0.00 4.84 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.11 1.57 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.35 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 27.72 39.24 73.17 73.19 0.00 8.71 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 59.72 2.45 5.88 5.88 0.00 51.47 Movement LOS E A A A A D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.72 5.88 51 47 Approach LOS A A D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.61 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.131 Sequence Ring 1 3 4 6 Ring 2 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 ME4 15s 1 O$ 15s I Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #7: New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 12.9 B 0.002 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 11 I I l'► 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 376 349 2 1 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 376 349 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 99 92 1 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 396 367 2 1 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.00 12.86 Movement LOS A A A A B 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 12 86 Approach LOS A A B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.02 Intersection LOS B Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\6_0pening With Project_PM.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 6: Opening With Project PM Peak 12/11/2015 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 WBR 0.729 25.2 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NEBR 0.731 24.6 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.876 93.4 F 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.497 18.5 B 5 Grande VistAPewy /Indiana Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.362 15.7 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 NEBL 0.360 13.0 B 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.079 16.0 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 25.2 C 0.729 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 655 1 536 457 1143 1274 353 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 655 1 536 457 1143 1274 353 Peak Hour Factor 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 „„„ 0.9480 0.9480 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1000 1.- 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 173 0 141 121 301 336 93 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 691 1 565 482 1206 1344 372 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 43 J 0 0 0 24 67 43 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 L. 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 26 26 26 15 47 27 27 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.58 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.15 0.26 0.29 0.26 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1563 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 530 509 473 594 2682 1578 492 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 24.82 25.19 25.90 31.54 9.84 24.90 23.81 k, delay calibration 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 5.49 7.49 13.48 2.74 0.12 1.39 4.85 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.79 0.82 0.89 0.81 0.45 0.85 0.76 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 30.32 32.68 39.38 34.27 9.95 26.29 28.66 Lane Group LOS C C D C A C C Critical Lane Group no yes nr 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.73 8.09 9.00 4.60 3.64 7.74 6.65 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 193.36 202.16 224.95 114.90 90.89 193.57 166.25 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 12.30 12.75 13.92 8.11 6.54 12.31 10.88 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 307.38 318.75 347.94 202.80 163.60 307.65 271.98 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 31.25 32.68 37.65 34.27 9.95 26.29 28.66 Movement LOS C C D C A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 34.13 16.90 26.80 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 25 19 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.729 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 Me /5s 1M I iss 1 =4 15s J i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 24.6 C 0.731 Name Approach Northe#astbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration "► r 1I r r r r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 316 3 827 0 0 1256 430 401 1481 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 316 3 827 1256 430 401 1481 Peak Hour Factor 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 i.u--- - - - - 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 82 1 214 325 111 104 383 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 327 3 855 1299 445 415 1532 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 52 0 0 53 25 78 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 26 26 26 28 28 13 45 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.57 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.31 0.13 0.33 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 539 481 481 1639 512 525 2647 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.26 25.21 25.21 23.16 24.07 31.82 11.04 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.10 13.56 13.56 0.90 12.17 2.71 0.20 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.61 0.89 0.89 0.79 0.87 0.79 0.58 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.37 38.76 38.76 24.05 36.24 34.53 11.24 Lane Group LOS C D D C D C B Critical Lane Group yes no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.02 9.00 9.00 6.98 9.05 3.90 5.10 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 125.55 225.02 225.02 174.62 226.13 97.53 127.46 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 8.70 13.92 13.92 11.32 13.98 7.02 8.80 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 217.44 348.03 348.03 282.98 349.43 175.56 220.03 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.37 38.76 38.76 24.05 36.24 34.53 11.24 Movement LOS C D D C D C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 34.50 27.16 16.20 Approach LOS C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 24 57 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.731 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mfl2 15s M OG 15s I SG. 1 Z7 I Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 93.4 F 0.876 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 492 375 282 226 251 330 204 816 101 232 1733 266 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 492 375 282 226 251 330 204 816 101 232 1733 266 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 132 100 75 60 67 88 55 218 27 62 463 71 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 526 401 302 242 268 353 218 873 108 248 1853 284 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 20 33 14 27 b 11 36 17 42 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 20 24 24 23 27 27 9 23 23 17 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.29 0.29 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.24 0.07 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.40 0.20 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 614 761 340 707 450 383 293 1040 325 515 1367 426 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 39.83 34.23 37.89 33.36 30.98 36.64 45.20 37.95 33.32 38.88 36.12 31.72 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.59 0.57 15.33 0.29 0.57 22.16 3.73 1.90 0.60 0.70 161.17 3.38 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.86 0.53 0.89 0.34 0.40 0.92 0.74 0.84 0.33 0.48 1.36 0.67 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 43.42 34.80 53.22 33.65 31.55 58.80 48.94 39.86 33.91 39.58 197.29 35.10 Lane Group LOS D C D C C E D D C D F D Critical Lane Group no no ,es yes no no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.61 4.37 8.63 2.54 3.67 10.75 2.83 7.04 2.29 2.85 31.45 6.45 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 165.19 109.26 215.83 63.39 91.75 268.84 70.67 176.00 57.19 71.35 786.16 161.24 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.82 7.80 13.45 4.56 6.61 16.13 5.09 11.39 4.12 5.14 47.86 10.61 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 270.58 194.97 336.29 114.10 165.16 403.30 127.21 284.79 102.94 128.43 1196.60 265.36 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 43.42 34.80 53.22 33.65 31.55 58.80 48.94 39.86 33.91 39.58 197.29 35.10 Movement LOS D C D C C E D D C D F D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 43.01 44.64 40.97 161.58 Approach LOS D D D F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 93 41 Intersection LOS F Intersection V/C 0.876 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 -2 15s rt5s 1 i i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.5 B 0.497 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 79 5 111 5 5 38 89 959 5 84 2002 15 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 79 5 111 5 5 38 89 959 5 84 2002 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 21 1 29 1 1 10 23 250 1 22 522 4 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 82 5 116 5 5 40 93 1000 5 88 2088 16 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 b 11 55 17 61 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 7 4 4 5 12 12 15 22 22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.41 0.41 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.33 0.33 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1633 1454 1668 1454 1629 3256 1705 1629 3256 1701 c, Capacity [veh/h] 202 180 115 100 160 740 388 462 1345 703 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.91 22.54 23.56 24.08 23.31 19.35 19.35 14.65 13.93 13.94 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.45 3.83 0.32 2.55 3.33 1.42 2.69 0.20 1.16 3.16 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.43 0.64 0.09 0.40 0.58 0.73 0.73 0.19 0.80 0.80 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.36 26.38 23.88 26.63 26.64 20.77 22.04 14.85 15.09 17.10 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C B B B Critical Lane Group yes no yes yes no no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.02 1.48 0.12 0.53 1.20 2.97 3.25 0.76 5.00 5.62 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 25.56 37.06 3.04 13.15 29.90 74.34 81.27 18.88 124.91 140.54 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.84 2.67 0.22 0.95 2.15 5.35 5.85 1.36 8.66 9.51 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 46.00 66.71 5.47 23.67 53.83 133.81 146.29 33.99 216.55 237.75 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.36 23.36 26.38 23.88 23.88 26.63 26.64 21.20 22.04 14.85 15.77 17.10 Movement LOS C C C C C C C C C B F B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 25.08 26.08 21.75 15.73 Approach LOS C C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 47 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.497 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 MU 15s + Q Es lip SG 17s —I 1SG 5 1'1 SG. � t4s .SG• g 193 k I _ ;SG, 1( 'F1 ISG' ff 5s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 15.7 B 0.362 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 64 594 25 13 546 9 19 0 11 54 233 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 64 594 25 13 546 9 19 0 11 54 233 Peak Hour Factor 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 166 7 4 153 3 5 0 3 15 65 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 72 664 28 15 610 10 21 0 12 60 260 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 19 11 19 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 4 8 8 3 7 7 1 14 14 8 8 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.23 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.18 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1678 1629 1710 1696 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 164 387 379 114 334 332 61 646 549 431 336 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 15.57 12.99 13.00 16.05 13.62 13.62 17.26 0.00 7.19 12.91 13.24 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.84 2.04 2.08 0.51 2.07 2.09 3.27 0.00 0.02 0.15 3.81 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.44 0.67 0.67 0.13 0.64 0.64 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.77 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.41 15.03 15.08 16.57 15.69 15.71 20.53 0.00 7.20 13.06 17.06 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B C A A B B Critical Lane Group to 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.56 1.75 1.72 0.12 1.50 1.49 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.36 1.92 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 13.90 43.79 43.11 2.90 37.46 37.24 5.07 0.00 1.11 9.01 48.06 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.00 3.15 3.10 0.21 2.70 2.68 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.65 3.46 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 25.02 78.82 77.61 5.22 67.43 67.03 9.12 0.00 1.99 16.22 86.51 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.41 15.06 15.08 16.57 15.70 15.71 20.53 0.00 7.20 13.06 17.06 Movement LOS B B B B B B C A A B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 15.34 15.73 15.69 16.31 Approach LOS B B B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 15 70 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.362 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 — —I JiY 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.0 B 0.360 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 72 608 388 10 48 191 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 72 608 388 10 48 191 Peak Hour Factor 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 20 169 108 3 13 53 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 80 674 430 11 53 212 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 50 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fixed time Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protected Permissive Permissive Signal Group 3 8 4 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 30 19 20 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C C L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 26 15 15 16 16 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.14 0.52 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.32 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.15 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1597 3192 1676 1662 1597 1425 c, Capacity [veh/h] 224 1660 503 499 511 456 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 19.47 7.30 14.11 14.12 11.96 13.58 k, delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 4.42 0.74 2.76 2.83 0.41 3.38 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.46 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.89 8.04 16.87 16.96 12.36 16.96 Lane Group LOS C A B B B B Critical Lane Group no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.04 1.79 2.12 2.13 0.42 2.06 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 25.94 44.66 53.06 53.26 10.44 51.56 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.87 3.22 3.82 3.83 0.75 3.71 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 46.69 80.39 95.50 95.87 18.78 92.80 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.89 8.04 16.91 16.96 12.36 16.96 Movement LOS C A B B B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 9.72 16 91 16 04 Approach LOS A B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 13.04 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.360 Sequence Ring 1 3 4 6 Ring 2 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 SG 3 11s 616 :Ds jSi31C* 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #7: New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 16.0 C 0.079 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 11 I I l'► 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 616 394 8 27 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 616 394 8 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 162 104 2 7 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 648 415 8 28 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.08 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.14 16.01 Movement LOS A A A A C 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.38 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 16 01 Approach LOS A A C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.41 Intersection LOS C Traffic Impact Study I Appendix CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\7_0peningCumulative Without Project_AM.pdf Scenario 7: Opening Without Project with Cumulative Projects AM Peak 11 /6/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.650 18.2 B 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.661 17.2 B 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.646 29.2 C 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.459 18.0 B 5 Grande VistAPewy /Indiana Signalized HCM2010 SEBR 0.133 9.0 A 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.000 13.4 B 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.000 13.1 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.2 B 0.650 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 292 0 646 0 573 1621 1012 224 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 292 0 646 573 1621 1012 224 Peak Hour Factor 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 i.u„„„ „ „ 0.9550 0.9550 „„„ 0.9550 0.9550 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 76 0 169 150 424 265 59 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 306 0 676 600 1697 1060 235 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 32 0 0 27 58 31 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 b._ 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 19 19 19 16 39 20 20 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.59 0.30 0.30 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.36 0.23 0.16 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 465 415 415 745 2767 1389 433 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.86 22.07 22.07 23.92 8.60 21.15 19.48 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.60 3.95 3.95 2.11 0.22 0.89 1.06 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.66 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.61 0.76 0.54 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 22.46 26.02 26.02 26.03 8.82 22.04 20.54 Lane Group LOS C C C C A C C Critical Lane Group 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.07 4.97 4.97 4.36 4.14 4.70 2.94 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 101.83 124.36 124.36 108.92 103.39 117.51 73.44 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.33 8.63 8.63 7.78 7.44 8.26 5.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 183.30 215.81 215.81 194.50 186.10 206.41 132.18 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 22.46 26.02 26.02 26.03 8.82 22.04 20.54 Movement LOS C C C C A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 24.91 13.31 21.77 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 20 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.650 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s — _I iss —_� Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.2 B 0.661 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 ÷ r 1 1 1 r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 497 6 306 0 0 1660 450 273 1031 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 497 6 306 1660 450 273 1031 Peak Hour Factor 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 i.u--- - - - - 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 132 2 81 441 119 72 274 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 528 6 325 1762 478 290 1094 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 30 J 0 0 54 16 70 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 16 16 16 29 29 9 42 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.64 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.38 0.33 0.09 0.23 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1599 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 396 389 354 2065 644 414 2958 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.91 22.97 23.25 16.37 15.17 27.32 5.72 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.69 2.85 3.87 1.08 3.81 2.17 0.08 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.74 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.74 0.70 0.37 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 25.60 25.81 27.12 17.45 18.98 29.49 5.80 Lane Group LOS C C C B B C A Critical Lane Group 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.17 4.16 4.12 7.05 5.84 2.19 1.81 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 104.27 104.02 102.99 176.20 146.02 54.77 45.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.51 7.49 7.42 11.40 9.80 3.94 3.26 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 187.68 187.23 185.39 285.05 245.10 98.59 81.53 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 25.70 25.81 26.96 17.45 18.98 29.49 5.80 Movement LOS C C C B B C A d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 26.16 17.77 10.76 Approach LOS C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 22 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.661 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s 15s J Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 29.2 C 0.646 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 619 277 161 111 179 112 321 1379 87 103 943 235 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 619 277 161 111 179 112 321 1379 87 103 943 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 166 74 43 30 48 30 86 370 23 28 253 63 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 665 298 173 119 192 120 345 1481 93 111 1013 252 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 25 31 13 19 0 17 35 11 29 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 20 12 12 16 9 9 13 29 29 6 22 22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.27 0.27 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.32 0.06 0.04 0.22 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 786 500 223 654 191 162 525 1671 522 255 1273 397 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 28.52 31.47 32.45 26.09 33.62 34.33 31.14 24.05 17.52 34.95 26.93 25.49 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.62 1.14 5.71 0.13 2.64 6.49 1.40 1.75 0.16 1.17 1.18 1.68 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.85 0.60 0.78 0.18 0.57 0.74 0.66 0.89 0.18 0.44 0.80 0.63 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 31.14 32.62 38.16 26.22 36.25 40.82 32.54 25.80 17.68 36.12 28.10 27.17 Lane Group LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C Critical Lane Group no no no yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.07 2.68 3.46 0.92 2.07 2.49 3.11 8.44 1.15 1.05 5.83 4.21 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 151.75 66.94 86.61 22.97 51.85 62.13 77.82 211.12 28.64 26.13 145.77 105.18 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.11 4.82 6.24 1.65 3.73 4.47 5.60 13.21 2.06 1.88 9.79 7.57 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 252.76 120.48 155.90 41.34 93.34 111.83 140.07 330.26 51.55 47.03 244.78 189.28 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 31.14 32.62 38.16 26.22 36.25 40.82 32.54 25.80 17.68 36.12 28.10 27.17 Movement LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 32.59 34.39 26.61 28.58 Approach LOS C C C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 29 17 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.646 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s 15s �. 15s /5s _ i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.0 B 0.459 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 89 4 37 12 6 58 101 1546 7 83 1018 9 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 89 4 37 12 6 58 101 1546 7 83 1018 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 26 1 11 3 2 17 29 445 2 24 293 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 102 5 43 14 7 67 116 1779 8 96 1171 10 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 b 11 21 11 21 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 6 5 5 11 19 19 5 13 13 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.26 0.26 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.19 0.19 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1632 1454 1655 1454 1629 3256 1705 1629 3256 1701 c, Capacity [veh/h] 196 175 162 142 343 1206 632 166 853 446 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.43 20.63 21.32 22.07 17.37 14.41 14.41 22.16 17.48 17.48 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.35 0.72 0.36 2.40 0.58 1.12 2.12 3.14 1.28 2.43 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.55 0.25 0.13 0.47 0.34 0.78 0.78 0.58 0.74 0.74 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.78 21.36 21.68 24.47 17.94 15.53 16.54 25.31 18.76 19.91 Lane Group LOS C C C C B B B C B B Critical Lane Group ,o no no no yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.24 0.47 0.23 0.80 1.11 4.25 4.62 1.16 3.17 3.45 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 31.04 11.65 5.74 20.02 27.72 106.13 115.59 29.10 79.17 86.28 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.23 0.84 0.41 1.44 2.00 7.62 8.15 2.10 5.70 6.21 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 55.87 20.98 10.34 36.03 49.89 190.60 203.76 52.38 142.50 155.31 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.78 23.78 21.36 21.68 21.68 24.47 17.94 15.88 16.54 25.31 19.14 19.91 Movement LOS C C C C C C B B B C B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.08 23.80 16.03 19.71 Approach LOS C C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 01 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.459 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 ll 1I3. 1 1 13 I 1 1 I I Iota .� l9s 1 19:1 $ 19s '.irly. 10455 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 9.0 A 0.133 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 20 379 47 9 338 4 33 0 7 2 6 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 20 379 47 9 338 4 33 0 7 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 105 13 2 93 1 9 0 2 1 2 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 418 52 10 373 4 36 0 8 2 7 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 19 11 19 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 6 6 1 6 6 2 6 6 0 0 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.01 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1618 1629 1710 1701 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 70 436 412 43 407 405 108 412 350 289 22 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 11.65 7.73 7.74 11.97 7.88 7.88 11.19 0.00 7.28 12.53 12.23 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.53 0.56 0.60 2.74 0.45 0.45 1.80 0.00 0.03 0.01 7.95 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.31 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.32 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 14.18 8.29 8.34 14.71 8.33 8.34 13.00 0.00 7.30 12.54 20.18 Lane Group LOS B A A B A A B A A B C Critical Lane Group no no yes no no to nc 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.13 0.49 0.48 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.08 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.32 12.32 11.93 1.79 9.73 9.70 4.66 0.00 0.54 0.22 1.91 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.24 0.89 0.86 0.13 0.70 0.70 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.14 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 5.98 22.17 21.48 3.22 17.51 17.46 8.38 0.00 0.98 0.40 3.44 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.18 8.31 8.34 14.71 8.33 8.34 13.00 0.00 7.30 12.54 20.18 Movement LOS B A A B A A B A A B C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 8.68 8.57 11.96 18.48 Approach LOS A A B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 8.98 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.133 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 J — —I 1 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.4 B 0.000 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 3 387 355 1 0 1 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 3 387 355 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1 108 99 0 0 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 3 430 394 1 0 1 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.07 13.45 9.41 Movement LOS A A A A B A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.06 0.00 9.41 Approach LOS A A A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.04 Intersection LOS B Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #7: New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.1 B 0.000 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 11 I I l'► 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 392 360 0 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 392 360 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 103 95 0 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 413 379 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.02 13.07 Movement LOS A A A A B 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 13 07 Approach LOS A A B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.00 Intersection LOS B Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\8_0peningCumulative Without Project_AM.pdf Scenario 8: Opening Without Project with Cumulative Projects PM Peak 11 /6/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 WBR 0.733 25.5 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NEBR 0.728 24.7 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.814 70.2 E 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.503 18.8 B 5 Grande VistAPewy /Indiana Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.347 15.2 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.181 20.0 C 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.000 15.5 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 25.5 C 0.733 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 670 1 540 442 1142 1290 360 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 670 1 540 442 1142 1290 360 Peak Hour Factor 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 „„„ 0.9480 0.9480 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 177 0 142 117 301 340 95 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 707 1 570 466 1205 1361 380 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 50 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 J 0 0 0 12 31 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 L. 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 27 27 27 15 46 28 28 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.57 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.15 0.26 0.29 0.26 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1565 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 536 515 478 577 2667 1587 495 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 24.78 25.14 25.89 31.86 10.02 24.96 23.92 k, delay calibration 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 5.81 7.85 14.25 2.73 0.12 1.44 5.39 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.79 0.83 0.89 0.81 0.45 0.86 0.77 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 30.59 32.99 40.14 34.59 10.14 26.40 29.31 Lane Group LOS C C D C B C C Critical Lane Group no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.93 8.29 9.27 4.47 3.69 7.89 6.90 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 198.23 207.27 231.84 111.75 92.27 197.21 172.61 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 12.55 13.01 14.27 7.94 6.64 12.49 11.21 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 313.69 325.32 356.69 198.43 166.09 312.37 280.35 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 31.55 32.99 38.34 34.59 10.14 26.40 29.31 Movement LOS C C D C B C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 34.58 16.96 27.03 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 25 50 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.733 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 1 iSat 1`s3 i 6:6 1I+1 Y 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 24.7 C 0.728 Name Approach Northe#astbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration "► r 1I r r r r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 320 3 842 0 0 1235 415 408 1505 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 320 3 842 1235 415 408 1505 Peak Hour Factor 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 i.u--- - - - - 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 83 1 218 319 107 105 389 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 331 3 871 1277 429 422 1556 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 110 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 u.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 45 0 0 43 22 65 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 ...0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 27 27 27 27 27 13 45 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.56 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.13 0.33 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 547 488 488 1606 501 533 2625 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.00 25.02 25.02 23.50 24.20 31.70 11.36 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.12 14.15 14.15 0.93 10.68 2.70 0.22 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.61 0.89 0.89 0.80 0.86 0.79 0.59 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.12 39.18 39.18 24.43 34.88 34.40 11.58 Lane Group LOS C D D C C C B Critical Lane Group no ..s 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.05 9.23 9.23 6.91 8.52 3.96 5.30 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 126.31 230.66 230.66 172.84 212.94 98.97 132.41 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 8.74 14.21 14.21 11.23 13.30 7.13 9.07 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 218.47 355.20 355.20 280.65 332.59 178.15 226.77 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.12 39.18 39.18 24.43 34.88 34.40 11.58 Movement LOS C D D C C C B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 34.75 27.06 16.45 Approach LOS C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 24 66 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.728 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 1 IF 1 =2 15s j =8 15s MG 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 70.2 E 0.814 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 497 370 293 209 233 224 214 858 104 206 1778 272 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 497 370 293 209 233 224 214 858 104 206 1778 272 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 133 99 78 56 62 60 57 229 28 55 475 73 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 532 396 313 224 249 240 229 918 111 220 1902 291 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 28 39 16 27 0 14 53 22 61 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 22 22 13 17 17 9 22 22 17 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.33 0.33 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.12 0.22 0.07 0.10 0.17 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.07 0.41 0.20 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 634 800 357 466 329 280 314 1118 349 602 1542 481 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 34.83 29.35 32.85 35.46 32.70 35.37 39.62 32.60 28.34 31.91 30.31 25.35 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.08 0.48 11.49 0.77 1.19 7.45 3.24 1.57 0.52 0.37 106.33 1.82 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.49 0.88 0.48 0.50 0.86 0.73 0.82 0.32 0.37 1.23 0.60 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 37.92 29.82 44.35 36.23 33.88 42.83 42.86 34.17 28.86 32.28 136.64 27.17 Lane Group LOS D C D D C D D C C C F C Critical Lane Group no no yes yes no no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.78 3.68 7.55 2.29 3.30 5.59 2.58 6.35 2.00 2.09 25.87 5.30 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 144.45 91.93 188.86 57.15 82.54 139.63 64.49 158.63 50.00 52.33 646.84 132.62 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.72 6.62 12.06 4.11 5.94 9.46 4.64 10.48 3.60 3.77 38.74 9.08 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 243.00 165.48 301.55 102.87 148.58 236.52 116.09 261.91 90.00 94.19 968.62 227.05 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 37.92 29.82 44.35 36.23 33.88 42.83 42.86 34.17 28.86 32.28 136.64 27.17 Movement LOS D C D D C D D C C C F C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 36.96 38.13 35.28 113.92 Approach LOS D D D F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 70 22 Intersection LOS E Intersection V/C 0.814 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mfl2 15s ! MOG.15s u Moo 15s MOB 15s I i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.8 B 0.503 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 79 5 111 11 5 38 89 1015 11 84 2042 15 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 79 5 111 11 5 38 89 1015 11 84 2042 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 21 1 29 3 1 10 23 265 3 22 532 4 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 82 5 116 11 5 40 93 1058 11 88 2129 16 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 120 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 0 13 63 19 69 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 7 4 4 5 13 13 15 23 23 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.42 0.42 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.34 0.34 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1633 1454 1653 1454 1629 3256 1699 1629 3256 1702 c, Capacity [veh/h] 199 177 122 107 158 773 403 450 1358 710 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.44 23.09 23.87 24.30 23.82 19.45 19.45 15.24 14.14 14.15 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.51 4.08 0.48 2.14 3.46 1.43 2.72 0.21 1.20 3.60 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.44 0.66 0.13 0.37 0.59 0.74 0.74 0.20 0.81 0.81 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.96 27.17 24.35 26.45 27.28 20.88 22.17 15.45 15.34 17.75 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C B B B Critical Lane Group ,es no yes no io no , 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.05 1.53 0.20 0.53 1.23 3.21 3.50 0.79 5.23 5.95 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 26.28 38.19 4.96 13.18 30.69 80.29 87.43 19.65 130.75 148.78 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.89 2.75 0.36 0.95 2.21 5.78 6.29 1.41 8.98 9.95 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 47.30 68.75 8.92 23.72 55.25 144.51 157.37 35.37 224.52 248.81 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.96 23.96 27.17 24.35 24.35 26.45 27.28 21.31 22.17 15.45 16.15 17.75 Movement LOS C C C C C C C C C B F B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 25.79 25.85 21.90 16.13 Approach LOS C C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 83 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.503 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 =1 =LIMA • f 1 i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 15.2 B 0.347 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 64 564 25 13 406 9 19 0 11 54 233 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 64 564 25 13 406 9 19 0 11 54 233 Peak Hour Factor 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 158 7 4 113 3 5 0 3 15 65 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 72 630 28 15 454 10 21 0 12 60 260 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 18 56 11 49 b 11 63 52 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 4 8 8 2 7 7 1 14 14 8 8 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.23 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.18 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1676 1629 1710 1691 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 166 376 369 112 319 316 62 650 553 437 337 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 15.29 12.90 12.90 15.86 13.24 13.24 16.98 0.00 7.01 12.65 13.01 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.79 1.99 2.04 0.54 1.25 1.27 3.20 0.00 0.02 0.14 3.75 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.43 0.66 0.66 0.13 0.51 0.51 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.77 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.09 14.89 14.94 16.41 14.49 14.51 20.18 0.00 7.03 12.79 16.76 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B C A A B B Critical Lane Group no ye: to 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.54 1.64 1.62 0.11 1.05 1.05 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.35 1.88 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 13.59 41.12 40.48 2.86 26.31 26.15 4.97 0.00 1.07 8.78 46.95 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.98 2.96 2.91 0.21 1.89 1.88 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.63 3.38 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 24.47 74.02 72.86 5.14 47.36 47.06 8.94 0.00 1.92 15.80 84.51 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.09 14.91 14.94 16.41 14.50 14.51 20.18 0.00 7.03 12.79 16.76 Movement LOS B B B B B B C A A B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 15.19 14.58 15.40 16.01 Approach LOS B B B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 15 24 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.347 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 ME2 15s ! WL�4 15s ! MO6 15s I W$ 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 20.0 C 0.181 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 26 624 403 10 48 35 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 26 624 403 10 48 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 7 173 112 3 13 10 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 29 692 447 11 53 39 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.18 0.05 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.32 20.00 9.86 Movement LOS A A A A C A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.16 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.23 3.94 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.33 0.00 15 70 Approach LOS A A C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 1.33 Intersection LOS C Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #7: New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 15.5 C 0.000 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 11 I I l'► 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 633 409 0 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 633 409 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 167 108 0 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 666 431 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.16 15.46 Movement LOS A A A A C 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 15 46 Approach LOS A A C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.00 Intersection LOS C Traffic Impact Study I Appendix CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\9_0peningCumulative With Project_AM.pdf Scenario 9: Opening With Project with Cumulative Projects AM Peak 12/11/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.650 18.2 B 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.662 17.3 B 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBR 0.651 29.5 C 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 SEBL 0.460 18.0 B 5 Grande VistAPewy /Indiana Signalized HCM2010 NWBR 0.142 9.0 A 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 NEBL 0.136 5.6 A 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.002 13.1 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.2 B 0.650 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 295 2 646 574 1621 1013 224 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 295 2 646 574 1621 1013 224 Peak Hour Factor 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 0.9550 „„„ 0.9550 0.9550 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 77 1 169 150 424 265 59 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 309 2 676 601 1697 1061 235 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 32 0 0 27 58 31 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 b._ 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.... ... Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 19 19 19 16 39 20 20 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.59 0.30 0.30 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.36 0.23 0.16 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 465 415 415 746 2768 1389 434 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 20.94 22.11 22.11 23.95 8.60 21.18 19.51 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.64 3.95 3.95 2.11 0.22 0.90 1.06 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.67 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.61 0.76 0.54 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 22.59 26.06 26.06 26.07 8.82 22.08 20.57 Lane Group LOS C C C C A C C Critical Lane Group 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.13 4.98 4.98 4.37 4.14 4.72 2.94 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 103.37 124.62 124.62 109.33 103.58 117.90 73.58 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.44 8.65 8.65 7.80 7.46 8.28 5.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 186.07 216.16 216.16 195.08 186.45 206.94 132.44 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 22.59 26.06 26.06 26.07 8.82 22.08 20.57 Movement LOS C C C C A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 24.97 13.33 21.81 Approach LOS C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 24 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.650 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s — _I iss —_� Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 17.3 B 0.662 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 ÷ r 1 1 1 r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 497 6 309 0 0 1662 452 273 1036 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 497 6 309 1662 452 273 1036 Peak Hour Factor 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 i.u--- - - - - 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 132 2 82 441 120 72 275 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 528 6 328 1764 480 290 1100 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 30 J 0 0 54 16 70 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 16 16 16 29 29 9 42 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.63 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.38 0.33 0.09 0.24 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1598 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 397 390 355 2063 644 413 2955 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.93 22.98 23.27 16.43 15.24 27.37 5.76 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.68 2.85 3.88 1.09 3.93 2.18 0.08 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.74 0.75 0.79 0.85 0.75 0.70 0.37 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 25.61 25.83 27.14 17.52 19.18 29.55 5.83 Lane Group LOS C C C B B C A Critical Lane Group 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.19 4.18 4.15 7.09 5.91 2.20 1.84 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 104.75 104.51 103.63 177.17 147.80 54.90 45.88 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 7.54 7.53 7.46 11.45 9.90 3.95 3.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 188.54 188.13 186.54 286.31 247.49 98.82 82.59 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 25.71 25.83 26.97 17.52 19.18 29.55 5.83 Movement LOS C C C B B C A d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 26.18 17.88 10.78 Approach LOS C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 17 28 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.662 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 M . 15s Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 29.5 C 0.651 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 619 279 161 112 180 115 321 1379 89 111 943 235 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 619 279 161 112 180 115 321 1379 89 111 943 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 166 75 43 30 48 31 86 370 24 30 253 63 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 665 300 173 120 193 124 345 1481 96 119 1013 252 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 29 34 14 19 b 19 41 11 33 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 r - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 20 12 12 17 9 9 13 29 29 7 22 22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.27 0.27 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.32 0.07 0.04 0.22 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 785 499 223 662 195 166 525 1665 519 257 1270 396 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 28.78 31.76 32.73 26.14 33.70 34.50 31.40 24.35 17.78 35.27 27.19 25.74 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.64 1.17 5.75 0.13 2.48 6.55 1.41 1.82 0.17 1.30 1.19 1.70 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.85 0.60 0.78 0.18 0.56 0.75 0.66 0.89 0.18 0.46 0.80 0.64 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 31.42 32.93 38.48 26.27 36.18 41.05 32.81 26.16 17.95 36.57 28.38 27.43 Lane Group LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C Critical Lane Group no no , US yes no yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.13 2.72 3.50 0.93 2.09 2.59 3.14 8.56 1.20 1.13 5.89 4.25 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 153.29 68.10 87.42 23.30 52.35 64.71 78.56 213.98 30.01 28.35 147.35 106.29 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.19 4.90 6.29 1.68 3.77 4.66 5.66 13.36 2.16 2.04 9.88 7.63 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 254.82 122.57 157.35 41.93 94.24 116.48 141.40 333.93 54.01 51.04 246.89 190.83 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 31.42 32.93 38.48 26.27 36.18 41.05 32.81 26.16 17.95 36.57 28.38 27.43 Movement LOS C C D C D D C C B D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 32.89 34.52 26.95 28.91 Approach LOS C C C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 29 48 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.651 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 /5s 15s M 1 5s i i 1 i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 18.0 B 0.460 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 89 4 37 12 6 58 101 1549 7 83 1018 9 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 89 4 37 12 6 58 101 1549 7 83 1018 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 0.8690 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 26 1 11 3 2 17 29 446 2 24 293 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 102 5 43 14 7 67 116 1783 8 96 1171 10 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 b 11 21 11 21 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 6 5 5 11 19 19 5 14 14 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.26 0.26 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.19 0.19 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1632 1454 1655 1454 1629 3256 1705 1629 3256 1701 c, Capacity [veh/h] 196 175 162 142 344 1208 633 166 853 446 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.46 20.66 21.35 22.09 17.36 14.41 14.42 22.19 17.50 17.50 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.35 0.73 0.36 2.41 0.58 1.12 2.13 3.15 1.28 2.43 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.55 0.25 0.13 0.47 0.34 0.78 0.78 0.58 0.74 0.74 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.81 21.39 21.70 24.50 17.93 15.54 16.54 25.34 18.78 19.93 Lane Group LOS C C C C B B B C B B Critical Lane Group no no yes no 1ss y..s no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.24 0.47 0.23 0.80 1.11 4.26 4.64 1.17 3.17 3.46 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 31.09 11.67 5.75 20.05 27.73 106.47 115.97 29.15 79.30 86.42 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.24 0.84 0.41 1.44 2.00 7.64 8.17 2.10 5.71 6.22 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 55.97 21.01 10.35 36.09 49.91 191.08 204.27 52.46 142.74 155.56 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.81 23.81 21.39 21.70 21.70 24.50 17.93 15.88 16.54 25.34 19.17 19.93 Movement LOS C C C C C C B B B C B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.12 23.83 16.04 19.74 Approach LOS C C B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 03 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.460 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 ll 1I3. 1 1 13 I 1 1 I I Iota .� l9s 1 19:1 $ 19s '.irly. 10455 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 9.0 A 0.142 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 20 391 47 9 342 4 33 0 7 2 6 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 20 391 47 9 342 4 33 0 7 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 0.9060 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 6 108 13 2 94 1 9 0 2 1 2 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 22 432 52 10 377 4 36 0 8 2 7 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 120 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 56 11 56 0 34 19 53 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 6 6 1 6 6 2 0 0 8 6 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.24 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1620 1629 1710 1701 1296 1710 1454 1629 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 70 438 415 42 408 406 292 29 25 652 352 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 11.70 7.76 7.77 12.04 7.92 7.92 12.59 0.00 12.24 7.24 7.27 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.51 0.58 0.62 2.89 0.45 0.46 0.19 0.00 7.14 0.00 0.02 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.02 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 14.20 8.34 8.40 14.93 8.37 8.38 12.78 0.00 19.38 7.24 7.30 Lane Group LOS B A A B A A B A B A A Critical Lane Group no ye: no to 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.13 0.51 0.50 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.33 12.78 12.38 1.82 9.90 9.88 4.12 0.00 2.04 0.13 0.48 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.24 0.92 0.89 0.13 0.71 0.71 0.30 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.03 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 5.99 23.00 22.29 3.28 17.82 17.78 7.42 0.00 3.66 0.23 0.86 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 14.20 8.36 8.40 14.93 8.37 8.38 12.78 0.00 19.38 7.24 7.30 Movement LOS B A A B A A B A B A A d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 8.72 8.61 13.98 7.28 Approach LOS A A B A d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 9.00 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.142 Sequence Ring 1 5 2 3 4 Ring 2 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 5s. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 5.6 A 0.136 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 15 387 355 1 0 5 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 15 387 355 1 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 108 99 0 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 17 430 394 1 0 6 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fixed time Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protected Permissive Split Signal Group 3 8 4 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 13 111 98 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C C L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 9 107 94 94 15 15 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.07 0.82 0.72 0.72 0.12 0.12 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 3256 1710 1708 1629 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 113 2680 1236 1235 188 168 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 56.91 2.34 5.64 5.64 0.00 51.08 k, delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.81 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.40 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 59.72 2.47 5.91 5.91 0.00 51.47 Lane Group LOS E A A A A D Critical Lane Group no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.62 0.92 1.68 1.68 0.00 0.19 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 15.40 22.90 42.10 42.10 0.00 4.84 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.11 1.65 3.03 3.03 0.00 0.35 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 27.72 41.22 75.77 75.79 0.00 8.71 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 59.72 2.47 5.91 5.91 0.00 51.47 Movement LOS E A A A A D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.65 5.91 51 47 Approach LOS A A D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.57 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.136 Sequence Ring 1 3 4 6 Ring 2 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 ME4 15s 1 O$ 15s I Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #7: New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.1 B 0.002 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 11 I I l'► 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 392 360 2 1 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 392 360 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 103 95 1 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 413 379 2 1 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.03 13.10 Movement LOS A A A A B 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 13 10 Approach LOS A A B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.02 Intersection LOS B Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\10_0peningCumulative With Project_PM.pdf Scenario 10: Opening With Project with Cumulative Projects PM Peak 12/11/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 WBR 0.752 27.2 C 2 La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized HCM2010 NWBR 0.766 27.3 C 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.895 102.2 F 4 La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.507 19.0 B 5 Grande VistAPewy /Indiana Signalized HCM2010 NWBL 0.365 15.8 B 6 Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 NEBL 0.358 13.0 B 7 New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Two-way stop HCM2010 SEBL 0.082 16.5 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 WB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 27.2 C 0.752 Name Approach Westbound Northeastbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 Y r 11111 1 1 1 r'► Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 ., - 12.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 2 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 ' 170.00 - -1 1 nn nn 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 r2n nr 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 683 1 540 488 1160 1295 360 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 683 1 540 488 1160 1295 360 Peak Hour Factor 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 „„„ 0.9480 0.9480 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 180 0 142 129 306 342 95 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 720 1 570 515 1224 1366 380 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 50 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split 'Prmiss Split Permiss Protecte Per Protecte miss Permiss Permiss Pe... Permiss Signal Group 4 0 0 0 5 2 n n 6 Lead / Lag - Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 l 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 J 0 0 0 12 31 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 L. 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 28 28 28 17 49 28 28 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.58 0.33 0.33 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.16 0.26 0.29 0.26 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1567 1454 3163 4658 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 532 512 475 621 2694 1559 486 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 26.00 26.37 27.18 32.57 10.18 26.45 25.31 k, delay calibration 0.26 0.28 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 6.93 9.27 17.05 2.93 0.12 1.72 6.38 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.81 0.84 0.91 0.83 0.45 0.88 0.78 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 32.93 35.64 44.23 35.50 10.30 28.16 31.69 Lane Group LOS C D D D B C C Critical Lane Group no no yes yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 8.57 8.97 10.14 5.16 3.91 8.44 7.41 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 214.32 224.36 253.48 129.11 97.69 211.11 185.19 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 13.37 13.89 15.36 8.89 7.03 13.21 11.87 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 334.37 347.18 384.04 222.29 175.85 330.26 296.79 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 34.02 35.64 42.12 35.50 10.30 28.16 31.69 Movement LOS C D D D B C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 37.60 17.77 28.93 Approach LOS D B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 27 21 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.752 Sequence Ring 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 s Irr� Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #2: La Sierra Ave / SR-91 EB Ramps Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 27.3 C 0.766 Name Approach Northe#astbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration "► r 1I r r r r 1 1Th1ru 1� 1 1� r r r 1 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 -- - 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 1 2 Pocket Length [ft] J.00 100.00 414.00 150.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30-" 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 320 3 856 0 0 1299 461 408 1524 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 l0 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 320 3 856 1299 461 408 1524 Peak Hour Factor 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 i.u--- - - - - 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 0.9670 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 83 1 221 336 119 105 394 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 331 3 885 1343 477 422 1576 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 50 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss P, Permiss Protecte -miss r' Signal Group 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 0 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 0 0 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 J 0 0 20 11 31 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 - 0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 - 0 0 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 0 0 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 J 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] L.._ .. Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R C R L C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 28 28 28 29 29 14 47 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.57 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.33 0.13 0.34 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1454 1454 4658 1454 3163 4658 c, Capacity [veh/h] 544 486 486 1653 516 526 2652 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 23.12 26.48 26.48 24.31 25.75 33.33 11.65 k, delay calibration 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.32 17.63 17.63 1.01 20.53 2.89 0.21 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.61 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.92 0.80 0.59 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 24.44 44.11 44.11 25.32 46.28 36.22 11.86 Lane Group LOS C D D C D D B Critical Lane Group yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.39 10.32 10.32 7.71 11.47 4.20 5.66 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 134.65 258.02 258.02 192.68 286.67 104.89 141.38 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.19 15.59 15.59 12.26 17.02 7.55 9.56 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 229.80 389.74 389.74 306.50 425.51 188.80 238.89 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 24.44 44.11 44.11 25.32 46.28 36.22 11.86 Movement LOS C D D C D D B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 38.75 30.81 17.01 Approach LOS D C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 27 25 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.766 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 8 Ring 2 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 1 _J 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 102.2 F 0.895 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r 1 i i r l"► i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hrru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 497 375 293 237 251 334 214 858 112 239 1778 272 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 497 375 293 237 251 334 214 858 112 239 1778 272 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 133 100 78 63 67 89 57 229 30 64 475 73 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 532 401 313 253 268 357 229 918 120 256 1902 291 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 19 11 19 b 11 19 11 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 20 25 25 23 27 27 10 24 24 16 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.29 0.29 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.12 0.22 0.08 0.11 0.25 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.41 0.20 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 1454 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 617 780 348 696 452 385 305 1079 337 488 1348 421 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 40.35 34.16 38.17 34.26 31.38 37.15 45.59 38.09 33.34 40.33 36.82 32.72 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.71 0.53 17.39 0.32 0.58 23.72 3.70 1.99 0.64 0.88 186.03 4.19 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.86 0.51 0.90 0.36 0.40 0.93 0.75 0.85 0.36 0.53 1.41 0.69 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 44.06 34.68 55.56 34.58 31.96 60.87 49.30 40.08 33.97 41.21 222.85 36.90 Lane Group LOS D C E C C E D D C D F D Critical Lane Group no no no yes yes no no no yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.80 4.40 9.25 2.72 3.81 11.18 3.01 7.52 2.57 3.04 34.30 6.87 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 169.94 109.92 231.34 67.95 95.26 279.39 75.23 187.99 64.30 76.12 857.56 171.75 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 11.07 7.84 14.24 4.89 6.86 16.66 5.42 12.02 4.63 5.48 52.54 11.17 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 276.83 195.89 356.06 122.31 171.47 416.46 135.42 300.42 115.74 137.02 1313.53 279.21 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 44.06 34.68 55.56 34.58 31.96 60.87 49.30 40.08 33.97 41.21 222.85 36.90 Movement LOS D C E C C E D D C D F D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 43.93 45.81 41.17 181.77 Approach LOS D D D F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 102.24 Intersection LOS F Intersection V/C 0.895 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 J I 1 l 1 1 1 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #4: La Sierra Ave / Vista Terrace Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 19.0 B 0.507 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration i r i t 17 r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru 1� r r 1"► 1 1Th1ru Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 122.00 136.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk no yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 79 5 111 11 5 38 89 1023 11 84 2069 15 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 79 5 111 11 5 38 89 1023 11 84 2069 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 0.9590 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 21 1 29 3 1 10 23 267 3 22 539 4 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 82 5 116 11 5 40 93 1067 11 88 2157 16 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 120 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Split --miss Split Split Split Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 8 4 5 2 1 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 19 19 0 12 63 19 70 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C C L C C L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 7 4 4 5 13 13 15 23 23 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.42 0.42 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.34 0.34 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1633 1454 1653 1454 1629 3256 1699 1629 3256 1702 c, Capacity [veh/h] 198 176 122 107 157 777 405 454 1369 716 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 22.64 23.30 24.05 24.49 24.01 19.56 19.56 15.27 14.16 14.17 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.54 4.17 0.48 2.16 3.50 1.45 2.74 0.21 1.22 3.83 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.44 0.66 0.13 0.37 0.59 0.75 0.75 0.19 0.81 0.81 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 24.18 27.47 24.53 26.65 27.52 21.01 22.31 15.47 15.38 18.00 Lane Group LOS C C C C C C C B B B Critical Lane Group ,es no yes no nc io no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.06 1.54 0.20 0.53 1.24 3.27 3.56 0.79 5.34 6.11 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 26.55 38.62 5.00 13.29 30.99 81.64 88.88 19.76 133.45 152.78 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.91 2.78 0.36 0.96 2.23 5.88 6.40 1.42 9.13 10.17 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 47.79 69.51 9.00 23.93 55.78 146.95 159.99 35.56 228.17 254.14 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 24.18 24.18 27.47 24.53 24.53 26.65 27.52 21.44 22.31 15.47 16.26 18.00 Movement LOS C C C C C C C C C B F B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 26.06 26.04 22.03 16.24 Approach LOS C C C B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 18 95 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.507 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 8 Ring 2 5 6 Ring 3 Ring 4 =LIMA I Es 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #5: Grande Vista Pkwy / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 15.8 B 0.365 Name Approach Northeasttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I"► I 1 r l"► l r r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0u 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 185.00 200.00 87.00 113.00 "'n nn Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 64 610 25 13 561 9 19 0 11 54 233 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 64 610 25 13 561 9 19 0 11 54 233 Peak Hour Factor 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 0.8950 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 18 170 7 4 157 3 5 0 3 15 65 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 72 682 28 15 627 10 21 0 12 60 260 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss -� ss f Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 5 2 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 19 11 19 b 11 30 19 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 it Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 4 8 8 3 7 7 1 14 14 8 8 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.23 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.18 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 1710 1678 1629 1710 1696 1629 1710 1454 1296 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 164 393 386 114 341 338 61 644 547 430 336 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 15.69 13.02 13.02 16.18 13.65 13.65 17.39 0.00 7.26 13.00 13.35 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.85 2.05 2.10 0.52 2.08 2.11 3.28 0.00 0.02 0.15 3.83 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.44 0.68 0.68 0.13 0.65 0.65 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.77 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 17.54 15.08 15.12 16.70 15.73 15.76 20.67 0.00 7.28 13.15 17.17 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B C A A B B Critical Lane Group no no to 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.56 1.81 1.78 0.12 1.55 1.54 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.36 1.94 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 14.04 45.15 44.46 2.93 38.73 38.50 5.11 0.00 1.12 9.10 48.55 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.01 3.25 3.20 0.21 2.79 2.77 0.37 0.00 0.08 0.66 3.50 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 25.27 81.26 80.02 5.27 69.71 69.31 9.19 0.00 2.02 16.38 87.39 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 17.54 15.10 15.12 16.70 15.74 15.76 20.67 0.00 7.28 13.15 17.17 Movement LOS B B B B B B C A A B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 15.39 15.78 15.80 16.42 Approach LOS B B B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 15 76 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.365 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 — —I JiY 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report #6: Metrolink Driveway East / Indiana Ave Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM2010 Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.0 B 0.358 Name Approach Northeastbbound Southwetstbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I"► 17 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 83.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 72 624 403 10 48 191 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 72 624 403 10 48 191 Peak Hour Factor 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 0.9020 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 20 173 112 3 13 53 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 80 692 447 11 53 212 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 50 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fixed time Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protected Permissive Split Signal Group 3 8 4 6 Lead / Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 11 30 19 20 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C C L R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 26 15 15 16 16 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.14 0.52 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.32 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.15 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1629 3256 1710 1696 1629 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 228 1693 513 509 521 465 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 19.45 7.31 14.14 14.16 11.95 13.53 k, delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 4.21 0.73 2.80 2.86 0.39 3.20 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.35 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.46 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.65 8.05 16.94 17.03 12.34 16.73 Lane Group LOS C A B B B B Critical Lane Group yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.03 1.83 2.21 2.22 0.42 2.04 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 25.72 45.86 55.17 55.38 10.40 51.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 1.85 3.30 3.97 3.99 0.75 3.67 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 46.29 82.54 99.30 99.68 18.72 91.87 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.65 8.05 16.98 17.03 12.34 16.73 Movement LOS C A B B B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 9.66 16 98 15 85 Approach LOS A B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 13.00 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.358 Sequence Ring 1 3 4 6 Ring 2 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 5G 3 11s 616 :Ds j531C* 1 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Two-way stop HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #7: New Metrolink Driveway / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 16.5 C 0.082 Name Approach Northeastbound Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 11 I I l'► 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 200.00 Speed [mph] 30 00 30 00 30 00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 633 409 8 27 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 633 409 8 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 167 108 2 7 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 666 431 8 28 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.08 d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 8.18 16.45 Movement LOS A A A A C 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.64 d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.00 0.00 16 45 Approach LOS A A C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 0.41 Intersection LOS C Traffic Impact Study I Appendix OPENING YEAR 2016 WITH PROJECT IMPROVED CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\11_Mitigation_AM.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 11: Mitigation AM Peak 12/11/2015 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBT 0.667 30.9 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 30.9 C 0.667 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r i i r r 1 i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hr1u Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 614 279 154 105 180 111 313 1347 81 102 910 228 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 614 279 154 105 180 111 313 1347 81 102 910 228 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 165 75 41 28 48 30 84 362 22 27 244 61 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 660 300 165 113 193 119 336 1447 87 110 977 245 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Overlap Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 0 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 25 31 13 19 b 17 35 11 29 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 20 12 12 20 11 14 29 29 6 22 22 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.24 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.26 0.26 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.06 0.03 0.21 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 775 477 213 747 235 515 1616 504 246 1220 381 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 29.92 33.34 34.14 25.14 34.83 32.59 25.71 18.85 36.60 28.64 27.22 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.76 1.37 5.93 0.09 6.94 1.41 1.98 0.16 1.27 1.26 1.82 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.85 0.63 0.77 0.15 0.82 0.65 0.90 0.17 0.45 0.80 0.64 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 32.69 34.71 40.07 25.23 41.77 33.99 27.69 19.01 37.87 29.90 29.04 Lane Group LOS C C D C D C C B D C C Critical Lane Group no no no yes yes no yes no no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.35 2.86 3.47 0.87 4.15 3.18 8.80 1.15 1.09 5.96 4.35 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 158.70 71.57 86.84 21.80 103.71 79.54 220.04 28.69 27.23 149.01 108.82 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.48 5.15 6.25 1.57 7.47 5.73 13.67 2.07 1.96 9.96 7.77 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 262.00 128.82 156.31 39.23 186.67 143.17 341.67 51.63 49.01 249.11 194.36 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 32.69 34.71 40.07 25.23 41.77 0.00 33.99 27.69 19.01 37.87 29.90 29.04 Movement LOS C C D C D C C B D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 34.31 35.66 28.42 30.40 Approach LOS C D C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 30 90 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.667 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s 15s 1. 15s 15s J i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\12_Mitigation_PM.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 12: Mitigation PM Peak 12/11/2015 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.790 59.4 E V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 59.4 E 0.790 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r i i r r 1 i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hr1u Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 492 375 282 226 251 330 204 816 101 232 1733 266 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 492 375 282 226 251 330 204 816 101 232 1733 266 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 132 100 75 60 67 88 55 218 27 62 463 71 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 526 401 302 242 268 353 218 873 108 248 1853 284 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Overlap Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 0 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 28 38 17 27 b 14 51 24 61 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 17 21 21 12 16 8 20 20 18 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.18 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.40 0.20 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 631 781 349 447 310 305 1078 337 650 1588 495 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 33.83 29.00 32.10 35.14 34.96 38.60 31.98 28.07 30.13 29.00 23.76 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.97 0.52 9.49 1.03 7.10 3.14 1.51 0.55 0.37 76.83 1.33 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.83 0.51 0.87 0.54 0.86 0.72 0.81 0.32 0.38 1.17 0.57 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 36.80 29.53 41.59 36.17 42.05 41.73 33.49 28.62 30.49 105.83 25.09 Lane Group LOS D C D D D D C C C F C Critical Lane Group no no no yes yes no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.52 3.64 6.90 2.43 6.05 2.38 5.84 1.90 2.25 21.89 4.84 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 137.92 91.04 172.38 60.82 151.15 59.44 145.92 47.59 56.28 547.13 120.95 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.37 6.56 11.20 4.38 10.08 4.28 9.80 3.43 4.05 32.50 8.45 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 234.22 163.88 280.04 109.48 251.97 106.99 244.97 85.66 101.31 812.57 211.13 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 36.80 29.53 41.59 36.17 42.05 0.00 41.73 33.49 28.62 30.49 105.83 25.09 Movement LOS D C D D D D C C C F C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 35.60 39.26 34.55 88.38 Approach LOS D D C F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 59 36 Intersection LOS E Intersection V/C 0.790 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Mfl2 15s ! -J MOG 15s_I Moo iss MOB 15s 1 i i Traffic Impact Study I Appendix CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVED CONDITIONS Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion ITERIS Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\13_MitigationOpening_AM.pdf Scenario 13: Mitigation Cumulative Projects AM Peak 12/11/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SWBT 0.679 31.4 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 31.4 C 0.679 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r i i r r 1 i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hr1u Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 619 279 161 112 180 115 321 1379 89 111 943 235 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 619 279 161 112 180 115 321 1379 89 111 943 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 0.9310 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 166 75 43 30 48 31 86 370 24 30 253 63 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 665 300 173 120 193 124 345 1481 96 119 1013 252 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 100 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Overlap Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 0 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 29 34 14 19 b 19 41 11 33 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 r - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 n 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 21 13 13 19 12 13 29 29 7 23 23 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.14 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.27 0.27 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.07 0.04 0.22 0.17 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 778 494 220 733 235 498 1623 506 248 1253 391 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 30.32 33.40 34.42 25.84 35.34 33.56 26.23 19.16 37.19 28.77 27.23 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.81 1.21 6.06 0.10 7.00 1.73 2.36 0.18 1.44 1.29 1.78 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.85 0.61 0.78 0.16 0.82 0.69 0.91 0.19 0.48 0.81 0.64 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 33.14 34.61 40.48 25.95 42.34 35.29 28.60 19.34 38.64 30.06 29.02 Lane Group LOS C C D C D D C B D C C Critical Lane Group no no no yes ves no yes no 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.51 2.88 3.70 0.95 4.21 3.37 9.28 1.29 1.20 6.27 4.52 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 162.65 72.03 92.41 23.75 105.34 84.23 232.01 32.32 30.06 156.84 113.00 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.69 5.19 6.65 1.71 7.58 6.06 14.28 2.33 2.16 10.38 8.01 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 267.22 129.65 166.34 42.75 189.51 151.61 356.91 58.18 54.10 259.54 200.17 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 33.14 34.61 40.48 25.95 42.34 0.00 35.29 28.60 19.34 38.64 30.06 29.02 Movement LOS C C D C D D C B D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 34.64 36.06 29.34 30.61 Approach LOS C D C C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 31 42 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.679 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 /5s --1 W_1 15s 1 _� M 15s J i i Generated with Version 2.00-06 Vistro File: Q:\...\Basefile.vistropdb Report File: Q:\...\14_MitigationOpening_PM.pdf Scenario 14: Mitigation Cumulative Projects PM Peak 12/11/2015 Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 3 La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Signalized HCM2010 SEBT 0.806 66.1 E V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Generated with Version 2.00-06 Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM2010 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report #3: La Sierra Ave / Indiana Ave Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 66.1 E 0.806 Name Approach Northeatsttbound Southwestbound Northwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1 1 1 I I r i i r r 1 i i r t r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r i i r r r 1 1T1hr1u 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left T1hr1u Right Left Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length [ft] 210.00 210.00 206.00 206.00 311.00 353.00 532.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes yes Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] 497 375 293 237 251 334 214 858 112 239 1778 272 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 497 375 293 237 251 334 214 858 112 239 1778 272 Peak Hour Factor 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 0.9350 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 133 100 78 63 67 89 57 229 30 64 475 73 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 532 401 313 253 268 357 229 918 120 256 1902 291 Presence of On -Street Parking no no no no no no no no On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Intersection Settings Located in CBD yes Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 120 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte --miss Permiss Protecte Overlap Protecte Permiss Protecte Permiss Signal Group 3 8 7 4 0 5 2 1 6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Minimum Green [s] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Maximum Green [s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split [s] 26 35 15 24 b 13 48 22 57 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 � 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 10 0 10 10 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall no no no no no no no no Maximum Recall no no no no no no no no Pedestrian Recall no no no no no no no no Detector Location [ft] Detector Length [ft] I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Generated with Goo Version 2.00-06 VISTRO Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C L C R L C R L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 18 22 22 12 16 9 21 21 17 30 30 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.18 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.34 0.34 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.17 0.12 0.22 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.41 0.20 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 3163 3256 1454 3163 1710 3163 4658 1454 3163 4658 1454 c, Capacity [veh/h] 636 803 358 429 310 316 1124 351 621 1573 491 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 34.08 28.75 32.13 36.06 35.31 38.79 31.84 27.87 31.21 29.41 24.35 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 3.01 0.48 10.75 1.29 7.17 3.17 1.51 0.58 0.44 95.45 1.61 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.84 0.50 0.87 0.59 0.86 0.73 0.82 0.34 0.41 1.21 0.59 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 37.10 29.23 42.88 37.36 42.48 41.96 33.36 28.44 31.65 124.86 25.96 Lane Group LOS D C D D D D C C C F C Critical Lane Group no no no yes yes no no no yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 5.64 3.64 7.33 2.61 6.11 2.52 6.18 2.12 2.39 24.53 5.10 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 141.01 91.00 183.17 65.23 152.84 63.02 154.60 53.11 59.78 613.20 127.51 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 9.54 6.55 11.77 4.70 10.17 4.54 10.26 3.82 4.30 36.61 8.80 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 238.38 163.80 294.15 117.41 254.21 113.43 256.56 95.60 107.61 915.23 220.11 Generated with Version 2.00-06 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 37.10 29.23 42.88 37.36 42.48 0.00 41.96 33.36 28.44 31.65 124.86 25.96 Movement LOS D C D D D D C C C F C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 36.02 39.99 34.45 103.37 Approach LOS D D C F d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 66 11 Intersection LOS E Intersection V/C 0.806 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 Ring 2 5 6 7 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 15s MD4 15s 1 15s _Mg.15s 1 i AGENDA ITEM 8F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Hector Casillas, Senior Management Analyst Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements for On -Call Painting Services for the Commuter Rail Stations and Riverside Downtown Operations Control Center WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call painting services for a three-year term, and two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $1.2 million, plus a contingency amount of $150,000, for a total amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1,350,000; a) Agreement No. 16-24-013-00 with Interlog Corporation dba Interlog Construction; and b) Agreement No. 16-24-076-00 with U.S. National Corp. dba Jimenez Painting Company; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns nine commuter rail stations in Riverside County (Downtown Perris, Hunter Park, La Sierra, Moreno Valley/March Field, North Main Corona, Pedley, Riverside Downtown, South Perris, and West Corona) in addition to the operations control center located adjacent to the Riverside Downtown Station. Maintenance services are essential to provide clean, safe, and well -maintained facilities for the benefit of station patrons, as well as preserving the property investments of the Commission. Agenda Item 8F 69 On June 8, 2011, the Commission approved an on -call painting services agreement with an initial three-year term, and two one-year options for a not to exceed amount of $750,000 to cover the existing five commuter rail stations. Currently, the agreement is in its last option year and expires June 30, 2016. With the addition of the Perris Valley Line stations and Riverside Downtown Operations Control Center, a new agreement is necessary. The Commission requires the services of up to two qualified painting contractors during a seven-year maximum term to provide on -call painting services for Commission -owned stations, properties, fixtures, and appurtenances, including station canopies, light standards, bollards, fencing, platforms, and signage. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm and personnel and the approach, understanding, and ability to respond to the Commission's needs for on -call painting services as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 16-24-013-00. RFP No. 16-24-013-00 for on -call painting services at the commuter rail stations was released by staff on January 28, 2016. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 111 firms, 20 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids website, 28 firms downloaded the RFP; 2 of these firms are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the February 11 clarification deadline date. Six firms — A.J. Fistes Corporation (Long Beach); CTG Construction, Inc. (Wilmington); IMRAE (Murrieta); Interlog Corporation (Anaheim); Painting & Decor, Inc. (Orange); and U.S. National Corp. (Panorama City) — submitted responsive and responsible proposals prior to the February 25, 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, all firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Interlog Corporation and U.S. National Corp. to perform on -call painting services for a three-year term, with two two-year options to extend the agreements, as these firms earned the highest total evaluation scores. The multiple award, on -call, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity task order type contracts do not guarantee work to any of the awardees; therefore, no funds are guaranteed to any contractor. The estimated cost of on -call painting services for the agreement term, including option periods, is $1.2 million, and staff recommends a contingency of $150,000, for a total not to exceed aggregate value of $1,350,000. Services will be provided through the Commission's Agenda Item 8F 70 issuance of contract task orders to the contractors on an as -needed basis. Task order work will be competed and awarded to the most qualified contractor or to the contractor offering the lowest cost, as applicable. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with the contractors subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff oversight of the contract will be conducted to maximize the effectiveness of the contractors and to minimize costs to the Commission. Financial Information Yes FY 2016/17 $ 170,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2017/18+ Amount: $1,180,000 Source of Funds: LTF, 2009 Measure A Western County Rail funds Budget Adjustment: No N/A 244001 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244002 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244003 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244004 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244006 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 GL/Project Accounting No.: 244010 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244020 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244021 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244022 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244024 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/4,,e0 Date: 04/15/2016 Attachment: Standard Form On -Call Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8F 71 Agreement No. _-_-_- _ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL PAINTING SERVICES FOR METROLINK STATIONS WITH [***CONSULTANT**1 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of 2016 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") and [***INSERT NAME***], a [***[INSERT TYPE OF ENTITY - CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY]***] with its principal place of business at [***INSERT ADDRESS***] ("Contractor"). Commission and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" in this Agreement. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Contractor. Contractor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain maintenance services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Contractor represents that it is experienced in providing on - call painting services to public clients, that it and its employees or subcontractors have all necessary licenses and permits to perform the Services in the State of California, and that is familiar with the plans of Commission. Contractor shall not subcontract any portion of the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 2.2 Project. Commission desires to engage Contractor to render such services for the conduct of On -Call Painting Services ("Project") as set forth in this Agreement. 3. TERMS. 3.1 Scope of Services and Term. 3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Contractor promises and agrees to furnish to the Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the on -call painting services for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached 1 72 hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to June 30, 2019, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Commission, at its sole discretion, may extend this Agreement for two (2) additional two year terms. Contractor shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services. 3.2 Responsibilities of Contractor. 3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Contractor or under its supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Contractor on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. Contractor retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Contractor shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Contractor represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Contractor's conformance with the Schedule, Commission shall respond to Contractor's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission, Contractor shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.2.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 2 73 3.2.5 Contractor's Representative. Contractor hereby designates [***INSERT NAME OR TITLE***], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Contractor's Representative"). Contractor's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Contractor for all purposes under this Agreement. The Contractor's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.2.6 Coordination of Services. Contractor agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.2.7 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Contractor shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Contractor's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Contractor or its sub -contractors who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Contractor and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 3.2.8 Period of Performance. Contractor shall perform and complete all Services under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above ("Performance Time"). Contractor shall perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or Project milestones described in Exhibits "A" or "B" attached hereto, or which may be provided separately in writing to the Contractor. Contractor agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time and/or pursuant to any such completion schedule or Project milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the Commission will suffer damage. 3.2.9 Disputes. Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work done, of any work omitted, or of any extra work which Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to Contractor during the performance of 3 74 this Contract, Contractor shall continue to perform the Work while said dispute is decided by the Commission. If Contractor disputes the Commission's decision, Contractor shall have such remedies as may be provided by law. 3.2.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Contractor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Commission is a public entity of the State of California subject to, among other rules and regulations, the Public Utilities Code, Public Contract Code, and Labor Code of the State. It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of the law applicable to the public contracts of a county transportation commissions are a part of this Agreement to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with. These include but are not limited to the payment of prevailing wages, the stipulation that eight (8) hours' labor shall constitute a legal day's work and that no worker shall be permitted to work in excess of eight (8) hours during any one calendar day except as permitted by law. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.2.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Contractor. By executing this Agreement, Contractor verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time. Such requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and retention of documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of the Contractor. Contractor also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall avoid any violation of any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an electronic verification of work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly hired employees, or by some other legally acceptable method. Contractor shall maintain records of each such verification, and shall make them available to the Commission or its representatives for inspection and copy at any time during normal business hours. The Commission shall not be responsible for any costs or expenses related to Contractor's compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 3.2.10 or any of its sub -sections. 4 75 3.2.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, Sub - subcontractors and consultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as Contractor, Contractor shall require all of its subcontractors, sub -subcontractors and consultants performing any work relating to the Project or this Agreement to make the same verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for in Section 3.2.10.1. 3.2.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor verifies that they are a duly authorized officer of Contractor, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the Commission to terminate the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Contractor or its subcontractors, or subconsultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections 3.2.10.1 or 3.2.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with such requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Contractor under Section 3.2.10.2); or (3) failure to immediately remove from the Project any person found not to be in compliance with such requirements. 3.2.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.2.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Contractor represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Contractor shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.2.10.6 Air Quality. Contractor must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Contractor shall specifically be aware of the CARB limits and requirements' application to "portable equipment", which definition is considered by CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel -powered engine. Contractor shall indemnify Commission against any fines or penalties imposed by CARB or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Contractor, its subcontractors, or others for whom Contractor is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement. 3.2.10.7 Water Quality. 5 76 (A) Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable, Contractor's Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws, rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board; the Commission's rules regarding discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State. (B) Liability for Non -Compliance. Failure to comply with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject Contractor or Commission to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result of Contractor's non-compliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section, unless such non-compliance is the result of the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence of the Commission, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers. (C) Training. In addition to any other standard of care requirements set forth in this Agreement, Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section. Contractor further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate training, as determined by Commission, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this Agreement. Upon request, Commission will provide Contractor with a list of training programs that meet the requirements of this paragraph. 3.2.11 Insurance. 3.2.11.1 Time for Compliance. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.2.11.2 Minimum Requirements. Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against 6 77 claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Contractor has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.2.11.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (0 Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent Contractors coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. 7 78 (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor or for which the Contractor is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. (0 Contractor certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Contractor. (D) Professional Liability. Contractor shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -Contractors to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. (E) All Coverages. (i) forth hereunder. Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement 8 79 under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Contractor shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Contractor shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Contractor shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Contractor shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims - made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Contractor, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Contractor or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Contractor payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this 9 80 Agreement. The Commission may require the Contractor to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 3.2.11.4 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Contractor shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self - insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.2.11.5 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.2.11.6 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.2.11.7 Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractors or subcontractors to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subcontractors shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Contractor, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subcontractors. 3.2.12 Safety. Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Contractor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) 10 81 instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.2.13 Accounting Records. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Contractor shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.3 Fees and Payments; Labor Code Compliance. 3.3.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Compensation shall be on the basis of direct costs plus a fixed fee as further set forth in Exhibit "C". The total compensation per Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order, and shall not exceed said amount without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. 3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Contractor shall submit to Commission a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Contractor. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Contractor shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Contractor perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Representative. 3.3.5 Prevailinq Wages. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California 11 82 Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $15,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Commission shall provide Contractor with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.3.6 Registration. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Contractor and all subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subcontractor. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Contractor's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. 3.3.7 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Contractor and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Contractor or any sub -contractor for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Contractor and any sub -contractor shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Contractor. 12 83 3.3.8 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Contractor shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -contractor under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.4 Termination of Agreement. 3.4.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Contractor, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Contractor of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Contractor shall be compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to Commission, and Contractor shall be entitled to no further compensation. Contractor may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.4.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Contractor to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other information of any kind prepared by Contractor in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.4.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.5 General Provisions. 3.5.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 13 84 CONTRACTOR: COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.5.2 Indemnification. 3.5.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions of Contractor, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Contractor's Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Contractor's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor. 3.5.2.2 Additional Indemnity Obliqations. Contractor shall defend, with Counsel of Commission's choosing and at Contractor's own cost, expense and risk, any and all claims, suits, actions or other proceedings of every kind covered by Section 3.5.2.1 that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Contractor shall also reimburse Commission for the cost of any settlement paid by Commission or its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include payment for Commission's attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Contractor shall reimburse Commission and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Contractor's 14 85 obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission, its officials officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 3.5.3 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the Commission. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the Commission. 3.5.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.5.5 Commission's Right to Employ Other Contractors. Commission reserves right to employ other contractors in connection with this Project. 3.5.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties. 3.5.7 Assignment or Transfer. Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.5.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Contractor include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Contractor, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to Commission include its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content or intent of this Agreement. 15 86 3.5.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.5.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel or otherwise. 3.5.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for in Section 3.5.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.5.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.5.13 Prohibited Interests. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Contractor further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the Commission's Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.5.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.5.15 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.5.16 Authority to Enter Agreement. Contractor has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 16 87 3.5.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.5.18 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.5.19 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Contractor receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Contractor shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Contractor shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.5.20 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. [Signatures on following page] 17 88 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ON -CALL PAINTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND [***INSERT NAME***] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONTRACTOR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Scott Matas, Chair Approved as to form: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Signature Name Title ATTEST: Signature Name Title A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above referenced persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 18 89 EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES ['INSERT SCOPE***] EXHIBIT "B" - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [***INSERT SCHEDULE***] EXHIBIT "C" - COMPENSATION [***INSERT RATES & AUTHORIZED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES***] AGENDA ITEM 8G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Hector Casillas, Senior Management Analyst Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for Elevator Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-060-00 to Pacific Coast Elevator dba Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech) for the provision of elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services for a three-year term, and two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $550,000, plus a contingency amount of $55,000, for a total amount not to exceed $605,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to the contractor under the terms of the agreement; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns nine commuter rail stations in Riverside County. Four of the nine stations offer elevator services to station patrons. The La Sierra, North Main Corona, Riverside Downtown, and West Corona stations each have two elevators located near the platform, for a total of eight elevators. The two elevators located in the North Main Corona station parking structure are not included as part of this agreement, as they are covered under a separate agreement with ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, due to issues regarding warranty coverage and certain proprietary elevator controls. Elevator maintenance services are essential to provide continued assistance and safety for station patrons and to provide reliable and consistent performance of all elevators, as well as preserving and maintaining Commission property. Agenda Item 8G 91 On May 11, 2011, the Commission approved an elevator services agreement with an initial three-year term, and two one-year options for a not to exceed amount of $123,656 to cover the eight elevators at the existing commuter rail stations. Currently, the agreement is in its last option year and expires July 1, 2016. The current contract is being amended under the Executive Director's single signature authority for additional repairs that are required and exceed the original contract authorization. The new agreement will allow the Commission to maintain and repair the aging elevators at the commuter rail stations. The Commission requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide both monthly elevator maintenance and inspection services and on -call repair services. Scheduled monthly maintenance and inspection includes examining, adjusting, cleaning, lubricating, and testing of the motor, machine, controller, safety devices, and other elevator components and equipment. Alternatively, on -call repair services would be requested by Commission staff on an as -needed basis for unanticipated repair and emergency situations not covered under maintenance services. Under Commission supervision, monthly maintenance services would be conducted at each station for a fixed price during the term of the agreement, which shall not exceed seven years. On -call repair services would be requested on an as -needed basis, and pricing for that work would be based on the successful contractor's proposed fixed labor rates and fixed markup on equipment and/or materials. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm, personnel, and the ability to respond to the Commission's need for elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 16-24-060-00. RFP No. 16-24-060-00 for elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services was released by staff on January 21, 2016. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 135 firms, 51 of which are located in Riverside County. Through PlanetBids, 16 firms not located in Riverside County downloaded the RFP. A job walk was held on February 10 and five firms not located in Riverside County attended. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the February 18 clarification deadline date. Two firms — Amtech (Anaheim) and Liftech Elevator Services (Signal Hill) — submitted responsive and responsible proposals prior to the March 3, 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, both firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Bechtel staff. Agenda Item 8G 92 As a result of the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Amtech to perform elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services for a three-year term, with two two-year options to extend the agreement, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. Repair services will be provided through the Commission's issuance of contract task orders to Amtech on an as -needed basis. The proposed agreement amount is $550,000, plus a contingency amount of $55,000, for a total amount not to exceed $605,000. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with Amtech subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff oversight of the contract will be conducted to maximize Amtech's effectiveness and to minimize costs to the Commission. Financial Information Yes FY 2016/17 $ 75,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2017/18+ Amount: $ 530,000 Source of Funds: LTF, 2009 Measure A Western County Rail funds Budget Adjustment: No N/A 244001 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244003 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 GL/Project Accounting No.: 244004 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244006 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \PaAtavite, Date: 04/15/2016 Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8G 93 Agreement No. 16-24-060-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH PACIFIC COAST ELEVATOR dba AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of 2016, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and PACIFIC COAST ELEVATOR dba AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES ("Contractor"). Commission and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" in this Agreement. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Contractor. Contractor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain maintenance services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Contractor represents that it is experienced in providing elevator maintenance, inspection and repair services to public clients, that it and its employees or subcontractors have all necessary licenses and permits to perform the Services in the State of California, and that is familiar with the plans of Commission. Contractor shall not subcontract any portion of the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 2.2 Project. Commission desires to engage Contractor to render such services for the Elevator Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair Services project ("Project") as set forth in this Agreement. 3. TERMS. 3.1 Scope of Services and Term. 3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Contractor promises and agrees to furnish to the Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional elevator 17336.00603\24349695.1 I 94 maintenance, inspection and repair services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to June 30, 2019, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Commission, at its sole discretion, may extend this Agreement for two (2) additional two year terms. Contractor shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.2 Responsibilities of Contractor. 3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Contractor or under its supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Contractor on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. Contractor retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Contractor shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Contractor represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Contractor's conformance with the Schedule, Commission shall respond to Contractor's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission, Contractor shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.2.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates the Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 17336.00603\24349695.1 2 95 3.2.5 Contractor's Representative. Contractor hereby designates Catherine Clendenen, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Contractor's Representative"). Contractor's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Contractor for all purposes under this Agreement. The Contractor's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.2.6 Coordination of Services. Contractor agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.2.7 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Contractor shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Contractor's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Contractor or its sub -contractors who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Contractor and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 3.2.8 Period of Performance. Contractor shall perform and complete all Services under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above ("Performance Time"). Contractor shall perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or Project milestones described in Exhibits "A" or "B" attached hereto, or which may be provided separately in writing to the Contractor. Contractor agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time and/or pursuant to any such completion schedule or Project milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the Commission will suffer damage. 3.2.9 Disputes. Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work done, of any work omitted, or of any extra work which Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to Contractor during the performance of 17336.00603\24349695.1 3 96 this Contract, Contractor shall continue to perform the Work while said dispute is decided by the Commission. If Contractor disputes the Commission's decision, Contractor shall have such remedies as may be provided by law. 3.2.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Contractor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Commission is a public entity of the State of California subject to, among other rules and regulations, the Public Utilities Code, Public Contract Code, and Labor Code of the State. It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of the law applicable to the public contracts of a county transportation commissions are a part of this Agreement to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with. These include but are not limited to the payment of prevailing wages, the stipulation that eight (8) hours' labor shall constitute a legal day's work and that no worker shall be permitted to work in excess of eight (8) hours during any one calendar day except as permitted by law. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.2.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Contractor. By executing this Agreement, Contractor verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time. Such requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and retention of documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of the Contractor. Contractor also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall avoid any violation of any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an electronic verification of work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly hired employees, or by some other legally acceptable method. Contractor shall maintain records of each such verification, and shall make them available to the Commission or its representatives for inspection and copy at any time during normal business hours. The Commission shall not be responsible for any costs or expenses related to Contractor's compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 3.2.10 or any of its sub -sections. 17336.00603\24349695.1 4 97 3.2.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, Sub - subcontractors and consultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as Contractor, Contractor shall require all of its subcontractors, sub -subcontractors and consultants performing any work relating to the Project or this Agreement to make the same verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for in Section 3.2.10.1. 3.2.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor verifies that they are a duly authorized officer of Contractor, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the Commission to terminate the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Contractor or its subcontractors, or subconsultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections 3.2.10.1 or 3.2.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with such requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Contractor under Section 3.2.10.2); or (3) failure to immediately remove from the Project any person found not to be in compliance with such requirements. 3.2.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.2.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Contractor represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Contractor shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.2.10.6 Air Quality. Contractor must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Contractor shall specifically be aware of the CARB limits and requirements' application to "portable equipment", which definition is considered by CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel -powered engine. Contractor shall indemnify Commission against any fines or penalties imposed by CARB or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Contractor, its subcontractors, or others for whom Contractor is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement. 3.2.10.7 Water Quality. 17336.00603\24349695.1 5 98 (A) Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable, Contractor's Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws, rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board; the Commission's rules regarding discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State. (B) Liability for Non -Compliance. Failure to comply with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject Contractor or Commission to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result of Contractor's non-compliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section, unless such non-compliance is the result of the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence of the Commission, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers. (C) Training. In addition to any other standard of care requirements set forth in this Agreement, Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section. Contractor further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate training, as determined by Commission, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this Agreement. Upon request, Commission will provide Contractor with a list of training programs that meet the requirements of this paragraph. 3.2.11 Insurance. 3.2.11.1 Time for Compliance. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.2.11.2 Minimum Requirements. Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against 17336.00603\24349695.1 6 99 claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Contractor has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.2.11.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (0 Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent Contractors coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. 17336.00603\24349695.1 7 100 (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor or for which the Contractor is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. (0 Contractor certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Contractor. (D) Professional Liability. Contractor shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -Contractors to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. (E) All Coverages. 0) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set forth hereunder. (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement 17336.00603\24349695.1 8 101 under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Contractor shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Contractor shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Contractor shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Contractor shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims - made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Contractor, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Contractor or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Contractor payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this 17336.00603\24349695.1 9 102 Agreement. The Commission may require the Contractor to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 3.2.11.4 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Contractor shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self - insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.2.11.5 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.2.11.6 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.2.11.7 Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractors or subcontractors to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subcontractors shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Contractor, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subcontractors. 3.2.12 Safety. Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Contractor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) 17336.00603\24349695.1 10 103 instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.2.13 Accounting Records. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Contractor shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.3 Fees and Payments; Labor Code Compliance. 3.3.1 Compensation. Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed [***INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT***] ($[***INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT***]) without written approval of Commission's [***INSERT TITLE***]. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Contractor shall submit to Commission a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Contractor. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Contractor shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Contractor perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Representative. 17336.00603\24349695.1 11 104 3.3.5 Prevailing Wages. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $15,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Commission shall provide Contractor with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.3.6 Registration. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Contractor and all subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subcontractor. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Contractor's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. 3.3.7 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Contractor and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Contractor or any sub -contractor for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Contractor and any sub -contractor shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Contractor. 17336.00603\24349695.1 12 105 3.3.8 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Contractor shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -contractor under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.4 Termination of Agreement. 3.4.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Contractor, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Contractor of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Contractor shall be compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to Commission, and Contractor shall be entitled to no further compensation. Contractor may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.4.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Contractor to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other information of any kind prepared by Contractor in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.4.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.5 General Provisions. 3.5.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 17336.00603\24349695.1 13 106 CONTRACTOR: Pacific Coast Elevator dba Amtech Elevator Services 1550 South Sunkist St., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Attn: Catherine Clendenen COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.5.2 Indemnification. 3.5.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions of Contractor, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Contractor's Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Contractor's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor. 3.5.2.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Contractor shall defend, with Counsel of Commission's choosing and at Contractor's own cost, expense and risk, any and all claims, suits, actions or other proceedings of every kind covered by Section 3.5.2.1 that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Contractor shall also reimburse Commission for the cost of any settlement paid by Commission or its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include payment for Commission's attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Contractor shall reimburse Commission and its officials, officers, employees, 17336.00603\24349695.1 14 107 agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Contractor's obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission, its officials officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 3.5.3 Governing Law; _Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the Commission. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the Commission. 3.5.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.5.5 Commission's Right to Employ Other Contractors. Commission reserves right to employ other contractors in connection with this Project. 3.5.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties. 3.5.7 Assignment or Transfer. Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.5.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Contractor include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Contractor, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to Commission include its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content or intent of this Agreement. 17336.00603\24349695.1 15 108 3.5.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.5.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel or otherwise. 3.5.11 No Third Party_ Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for in Section 3.5.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.5.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.5.13 Prohibited Interests. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Contractor further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the Commission's Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.5.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.5.15 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.5.16 Authority to Enter Agreement. Contractor has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 17336.00603\24349695.1 16 109 3.5.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.5.18 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.5.19 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Contractor receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Contractor shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Contractor shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.5.20 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. [Signatures on following page] 17336.00603\24349695.1 17 110 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND PACIFIC COAST ELEVATOR dba AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PACIFIC COAST ELEVATOR dba TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES Scott Matas, Chair Approved as to form: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Signature Name Title ATTEST: Signature Name Title A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above referenced persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 17336.00603\24349695.1 18 111 EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES [***INSERT SCOPE**1 EXHIBIT "B" - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [***INSERT SCHEDULE**1 EXHIBIT "C" - COMPENSATION [***INSERT RATES & AUTHORIZED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES**1 17336.00603\24349695.1 19 112 AGENDA ITEM 8H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2016/17 San Bernardino Associated Governments Agreement for Inland Empire Rideshare and 511 Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-41-088-00 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to reimburse the Commission in an amount not to exceed $1.5 million for Fiscal Year 2016/17 commuter/employer rideshare and Inland Empire (IE511) programs administered by the Commission, on behalf of both agencies, as part of an ongoing bi-county partnership; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1993, SANBAG has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement, and manage a commuter assistance program (CAP) for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of several projects: • Rideshare Incentives, developed as a sister incentive project to the Commission's Measure A commuter incentive project, focusing on encouraging solo drivers to try alternative commute modes; • RidesharePlus, modeled after the Commission's rideshare rewards program, providing Entertainment© discounts to local and national merchants for long-term ridesharers; • Employer Services, implemented by SANBAG and the Commission in FY 1995/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services. CAP provides various services to employers in the bi-county area including the provision of marketing promotions, rideshare survey processing, assistance with average vehicle ridership calculations/compliance, employer network meetings, and newsletters; Agenda Item 8H 113 " R i d e m a t c h i n g a n d I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s , j o i n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n F Y 2 0 0 2 / 0 3 b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n a n d S A N B A G w h e n t h e y b e g a n p r o v i d i n g t h e s e s e r v i c e s d i r e c t l y ; " 1 E 5 1 1 , i m p l e m e n t e d i n F Y 2 0 0 9 / 1 0 t o p r o v i d e t r a v e l e r i n f o r m a t i o n t o R i v e r s i d e a n d S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y c o m m u t e r s ; a n d " I E C o m m u t e r , l a u n c h e d e a r l i e r i n F Y 2 0 1 4 / 1 5 , i n t e g r a t i n g 1 E 5 1 1 t r a v e l e r i n f o r m a t i o n a n d r i d e s h a r e s e r v i c e s t o p r o v i d e c o m m u t e r s w i t h a p e r s o n a l i z e d s e r v i c e . I n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h S A N B A G , t h e F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 w o r k p l a n a n d b u d g e t f o r c o n t i n u a t i o n o f S A N B A G ' s C A P a n d t h e o n g o i n g m a i n t e n a n c e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f a 5 1 1 t r a v e l i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s s y s t e m w a s d e v e l o p e d b y C o m m i s s i o n s t a f f . T h e p r o p o s e d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n S A N B A G a n d t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i l l b e b r o u g h t f o r w a r d t o S A N B A G ' s c o m m i t t e e i n J u n e a n d t h e n t o i t s b o a r d i n J u l y f o r f i n a l a p p r o v a l . S t a f f i s s e e k i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l o f a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h S A N B A G i n a n a m o u n t n o t t o e x c e e d $ 1 . 5 m i l l i o n t o b e r e i m b u r s e d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n . F i n a n c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n I n F i s c a l Y e a r B u d g e t : Y e s Y e a r : F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 A m o u n t : $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 S o u r c e o f F u n d s : S A N B A G B u d g e t A d j u s t m e n t : N o 0 0 2 1 1 1 / 0 0 2 1 1 2 / 6 3 2 1 1 3 / 0 0 2 1 3 9 / 0 0 2 1 4 6 / 0 0 2 1 7 8 / 0 0 2 1 8 2 / 0 0 2 1 8 8 / G L / P r o j e c t A c c o u n t i n g N o . : 0 0 2 1 9 1 4 1 6 4 1 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 6 3 4 1 4 1 2 0 3 $ 1 , 2 1 5 , 0 0 0 4 5 2 1 2 4 4 1 6 4 1 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 5 4 1 2 0 3 $ 2 8 5 , 0 0 0 F i s c a l P r o c e d u r e s A p p r o v e d : \ 1 4 1 4 , 4 4 4 1 I . u , i n D a t e : 0 4 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 6 A t t a c h m e n t : F Y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 S A N B A G F u n d i n g A g r e e m e n t a n d S c o p e o f W o r k A g e n d a I t e m 8 H 1 1 4 AGREEMENT No. 16-41-088-00 BY AND BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the 1st day of July 2016 ("Effective Date"), in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "SANBAG," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "RCTC." WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of Measure I - Valley Traffic Management Systems (VTMS) funds, and Victor Valley Traffic Management Systems funds, and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, to provide trip reduction services as well as incentives for the commuter programs. WHEREAS, SANBAG receives CMAQ and other federal funds and may use these funds to reimburse RCTC for its Services in performing Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services and RCTC will comply with the applicable federal requirements as set forth in "Exhibit C". WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the provision of commuter services and programs within San Bernardino County. WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services, now named IE Commuter, program since November 3, 1993, and has the expertise and resources necessary to manage such Services for SANBAG. WHEREAS, the Code of Federal Regulations encourages grantees and subgrantees of federal funds, such as CMAQ funds, to enter into local intergovernmental agreements for procurement or use of common goods or services. WHEREAS, for the avoidance of doubt, the parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that RCTC is not a subrecipient of federal funds from SANBAG, but is entering into a local intergovernmental agreement with SANBAG for procurement or use of common goods or services. 15-1001245 Page 1 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 115 WHEREAS, RCTC will own and/or operate web based software ("Software") implementing the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction Rideshare Services. WHEREAS, SANBAG will designate approved key personnel requiring access to the Software to receive log -in information for the Software from RCTC. WHEREAS, SANBAG will protect the confidential information received or accessible through the Software and will obtain and provide to RCTC non -disclosure and confidentiality agreements with its approved key personnel designated to receive access to the Software. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. 1. RCTC will administer, market, and implement commuter services and 511 programs in coordination with RCTC's commuter services program and in coordination with the regional ridesharing core services program in compliance with and as specified in the scope of work, Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Services"). 2. RCTC shall provide program administration and oversight and assure that its consultants and/or staff performs its Services within the budgets set forth in the scope of work, Attachment "A." 3. RCTC will work collaboratively and in partnership with SANBAG during the initial planning phases and notify SANBAG staff of any changes to the rideshare program, as set forth in Attachment "A". 4. SANBAG shall timely respond to RCTC on matters requiring RCTC to coordinate with SANBAG, as set forth in Attachment "A". 5. RCTC shall provide SANBAG with the following reports, on a monthly or quarterly basis, as set forth below, relative to tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment "A", to this Agreement: (a) Monthly Commuter Assistance Program Meeting Agenda (b) Quarterly Commuter Assistance Report (c) Quarterly Commuter Assistance Program Reports (d) Monthly IE511 All Hands Meeting Agenda B. Compensation. 1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under this Agreement will not exceed one million five hundred thousand dollars, and no cents ($1,500,000.00) and is expected to be provided from CMAQ funds. 15-1001245 Page 2 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 116 2. SANBAG receives CMAQ and other federal funds and may use these other funds to reimburse RCTC for its costs in performing the Services. 3. It is agreed that SANBAG Measure I Funds or other eligible funds will reimburse RCTC for the cost of purchasing any items not reimbursable by CMAQ, and invoices submitted to SANBAG shall clearly delineate CMAQ non -reimbursable expenditures. It is agreed that in the event sufficient funds from the sources set forth above do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to cover RCTC's costs to the date of Agreement termination. 4. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost -reimbursement basis, based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment "A." All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently than on a bi-monthly basis and no less than a quarterly basis. All invoices will be delivered to and received by SANBAG no later than 60 days after the end of the calendar year quarter. 5. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost reimbursements of CMAQ funds. SANBAG shall ensure that the CMAQ funds are used for authorized purposes in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provision of the terms in this agreement, and that performance goals are achieved. 6. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner 7. RCTC shall maintain during the term of this Agreement and for three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement. Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly authorized representatives of SANBAG, SANBAG's auditors, Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and the United States Department of Transportation, so that SANBAG can comply with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular No. A-133. In addition, the federal provisions set forth in Attachment "C" shall apply to this Agreement. C. Term. 1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2016, and terminate on June 30, 2017, unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties. 2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other for no or any reason, including, but not limited to, changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs. SANBAG shall pay for any Service provided up to the effective date of the termination. 3. The Executive Directors of both RCTC and SANBAG shall have the 15-1001245 Page 3 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 117 authority in their sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their respective agencies. D. Indemnification and Insurance. 1. (a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. For purposes of this paragraph D1(a) only, "RCTC" shall include Riverside County Transportation Commission in its role as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies. (b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, member or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC or its consultants under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. For purposes of this paragraph D1(b) only, "SANBAG" shall include the San Bernardino Associated Governments, the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, the San Bernardino County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, and the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency. 2. Insurance Requirements Without anyway affecting the indemnity provisions identified in this Contract, RCTC shall, at RCTC's sole expense, and prior to the commencement of any work, procure and maintain in full force, insurance through the entire term of this Agreement and shall be written with at least the following limits of liability: (a) Professional Liability - Shall be provided in an amount not less than $1,000,000, per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. RCTC shall secure and maintain this insurance or "tail" coverage provided throughout the term of this Contract and for a minimum of three (3) years after Contract completion. 15-1001245 Page 4 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 118 (b) Workers' Compensation - Worker's Compensation insurance shall be provided in an amount and form to meet all applicable requirements of the Labor Code of the State of California, including Employers Liability with $1,000,000 limits, covering all persons providing services on behalf of RCTC and all risks to such persons under this Agreement. (c) Commercial General Liability - To include coverage for Premises and Operations, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury Liability, Products/Completed Operations Liability, Broad -Form Property Damage and Independent Contractors' Liability, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit, and $2,000,000 in the aggregate written on an occurrence form. For products and completed operations a $2,000,000 aggregate shall be provided. (d) Automobile Liability - To include owned, non -owned and hired automobiles, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit, and in the aggregate written on an occurrence form. (e) Network and Privacy Insurance. RCTC shall carry, or shall cause its third party subcontractors to carry, Network and Privacy (Errors and Omissions) insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 in the annual aggregate, protecting RCTC and SANBAG from the following exposures relating to RCTC's or any of its subcontractors performance under the Agreement: (i) the theft, dissemination and/or unauthorized disclosure of use of confidential information and personally identifiable information (not to be limited bank information, social security numbers, health information, credit card account information, and confidential corporate information). Such insurance shall also include coverage for credit monitoring, notification expenses and other related costs associated with mitigating a data security or privacy breach; and (ii) the introduction of a computer virus into, or otherwise causing damage to, a computer, computer system, network or similar computer -related property and the data, software, and programs used herein. If such insurance is maintained on an occurrence basis, RCTC or its third party subcontractors shall maintain such insurance for an additional period of one year following the end of the applicable Term. If such insurance is maintained on a claims -made basis, RCTC or its third party subcontractor shall maintain such insurance for an additional period of three years following the end of the applicable Term. (0 Proof of Coverage - RCTC shall furnish certificates of insurance to SANBAG evidencing the insurance coverage required above, prior to the commencement of performance of services hereunder, and such certificates shall include San Bernardino Associated Governments, the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, the San Bernardino County Service Authority for Freeway 15-1001245 Page 5 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 119 Emergencies, and the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency as additional insureds on all insurances except Workers' Compensation and Professional Liability. Prior to commencing any work, RCTC shall furnish SANBAG with a certificate(s) of insurance, executed by a duly authorized representative of each insurer, showing compliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Article. If the insurance company elects to cancel or non -renew coverage for any reason, RCTC will provide SANBAG 30 days' notice of such cancellation or nonrenewal. If the policy is cancelled for nonpayment of premium, the RCTC will provide SANBAG ten (10) days' notice. RCTC shall maintain such insurance from the time RCTC commences performance of services hereunder until the completion of such Services. All certificates of insurance are to include the contract number and Project Manager's name. (g) Additional Insured- All policies, except for Workers Compensation and Professional Liability policies, shall contain endorsements naming San Bernardino Associated Governments and San Bernardino County Transportation Commission and their officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds with respect to liabilities arising out to the performance of Services hereunder. The additional insured endorsements shall not limit the scope of coverage for SANBAG to vicarious liability but shall allow coverage for SANBAG to the full extent provided by the policy. (h) Waiver of Subrogation Rights - RCTC shall require the carriers of the above required coverages to waive all rights of subrogation against SANBAG, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, and subcontractors. All general auto liability insurance coverage provided shall not prohibit RCTC or CONSULTANT'S employees or agents from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss or claim. RCTC hereby waives all rights of subrogation against SANBAG. (i) All policies required herein are to be primary and non-contributory with any insurance carried or administered by SANBAG. (j) Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice. (1) RCTC shall maintain and shall require its consultants to maintain such insurance from the time the Services commence until the Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section. (2) RCTC may legally self -insure, but shall require its consultants to place insurance with insurers having an A.M. Best Company rating of no less than A:VIII and licensed to do business in California. (3) RCTC and its consultants shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services. E. Rights of SANBAG and RCTC. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their 15-1001245 Page 6 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 120 respective entities' rights under this Agreement. F. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality/Use of Data. 1. Ownership. The following documents and data prepared by RCTC or RCTC's subconsultant pursuant to this Agreement shall become the common property of RCTC and SANBAG in both electronic and hard copy formats: (i) all data regarding commuters in San Bernardino County; (ii) San Bernardino County employer information; (iii) park and ride information specific to San Bernardino County; (iv) all data regarding 511 for San Bernardino County; (v) any monthly or quarterly reports produced by RCTC as required by this Agreement; and (vi) advertisements and collateral material for both the rideshare program and 511, including but not limited to; media, photos, video, messaging, etc., funded in whole or in part by SANBAG under this Agreement ("Documents and Data"). RCTC and SANBAG shall comply with all applicable state and federal law with regard to its use of such data, but shall not otherwise be limited in any way in its use of such data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at the respective party's sole risk and provided that the other party shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by this Agreement. Neither party to this Agreement shall sell the data or other materials prepared under this Agreement without the written permission of both parties. 2. Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials described in subsection (F)(1.) either created by or provided to RCTC in connection with the performance of this Agreement, other than advertisements and collateral material for the rideshare program and 511, shall be held confidential by RCTC. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SANBAG, be used by RCTC for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to RCTC that is otherwise known to RCTC or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. RCTC shall not use SANBAG's name or insignia, photographs of the project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of SANBAG, except as otherwise part of the regular operation and advertisement of the rideshare program and 511. 3. Use of Data. All Documents and Data, as defined above, shall be provided to SANBAG in hard copy and electronic media. Documents and Data in electronic media shall be provided in a form that will allow SANBAG to use, access, and manipulate the data to prepare reports and perform other ridematching activities contemplated by this Agreement. All Documents and Data shall be provided to SANBAG within 30 days upon written notice. G. Confidential Information/Non-Disclosure. 15-1001245 Page 7 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 121 1. Confidential Information. "Confidential Information" shall include: all user names, passwords, or other log -in credentials used, provided, or accessible in connection with the Software; all data or information accessible in connection with the Software; all source code, work product, proprietary information, server logs, technical information, trade secrets, and proprietary systems related to the Software; all personal information of Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs participants, including but not limited to a participant's residence address, employment address or hours of employment for the purpose of assisting private entities in the establishment or implementation of carpooling or ridesharing programs as required by California Penal Code Section 637, as well as names, biographical information, demographic information, use data, contact information, or similar personal information of participants; and any and all data, content, materials, documents and/or other information related to the Software and/or the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction Rideshare Services designated, from time to time, in writing by RCTC as Confidential Information. 2. Non -Disclosure. Except as required by law, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, both parties shall hold the Confidential Information in confidence, shall take reasonable precaution to protect and keep the Confidential Information confidential, shall not disclose the Confidential Information to any person or party not specifically authorized in writing by affected party to receive the Confidential Information, and shall not use the Confidential Information for any purpose other than as necessary to operate the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services. Further, neither party shall disclose a participant's personal information, including but not limited to a participant's residence address, employment address or hours of employment for the purpose of assisting private entities in the establishment or implementation of carpooling or ridesharing programs, to any other person or use such information for purposes other than as necessary to operate the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services, without the prior written consent of the participant, as required by California Penal Code section 637. Parties shall limit access to the Confidential Information only to individuals who are directly involved in operation of the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services and further provided that such individuals are legally bound to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information on substantially the same terms as set forth herein. The foregoing restrictions on disclosure shall not apply to Confidential Information which is (a) already known by the recipient, (b) becomes, through no act or fault of the recipient, publicly known, (c) received by recipient from a third party without a restriction on disclosure or use, (d) independently developed by recipient without reference to the other party's Confidential Information, or (e) is required by law, or process of law, to be disclosed. 3. Expiration. Immediately upon (a) the expiration or termination of this Agreement, or (b) a request by a party, the other party shall turn over to requesting party all Confidential Information of or pertaining to the requesting party and all documents or media containing any such Confidential Information and any and all copies or extracts thereof, except 15-1001245 Page 8 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 122 that each party's legal counsel may retain one copy of all Confidential Information in its office solely for archival legal purposes. 4. Key Personnel. SANBAG shall designate key personnel ("Key Personnel") requiring web based access to the Software for the operation of the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services, to receive from RCTC log -in information enabling access to the Software. Key Personnel shall use the log -in information provided by RCTC and all Confidential Information only and strictly for the operation of the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services and shall not disclose or share such log -in information, or any other Confidential Information, with any party, whether or not employed or in any way associated with SANBAG, who has not been specifically approved in writing by RCTC to receive such log -in information or other Confidential Information. 5. Non -Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement. To protect RCTC's Confidential Information, SANBAG shall require each Key Personnel to execute a Non - Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement substantially in the form of Attachment "B" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. SANBAG shall provide RCTC a signed Non - Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement for each Key Personnel designated below or designated from time -to -time by SANBAG's Executive Director or his designee prior to RCTC's disclosure of any log -in information or other Confidential Information to such Key Personnel. SANBAG hereby designates the following individuals as Key Personnel requiring web based access to the Software for the operation of the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs: 6. This Paragraph G and all of its subparagraphs shall survive expiration or termination of the Agreement. H. Independent Contractor. SANBAG retains RCTC on an independent contractor basis and RCTC and its subconsultants shall not be employees of SANBAG. The subconsultants and other personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of RCTC shall at all times be under RCTC's exclusive direction and control. RCTC shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. RCTC shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such employees, including, but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. I. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Paragraph D, Indemnification and Insurance. J. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this Agreement, that party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. 15-1001245 Page 9 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 123 K. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. [Signatures on following page] 15-1001245 Page 10 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 124 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT BELOW: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION L. Dennis Michael, President APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM Robert D. Herrick, Assistant General Counsel CONCURRENCE: Jeffery Hill Procurement Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Scott Matas, Chair APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM Best, Best & Krieger, LLP, General Counsel 15-1001245 Page 11 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 125 Attachment "A " Scope of Work San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs Fiscal Year 2016-17 IE Commuter Provide a variety of services to employers and commuters, who participate in trip reduction activities. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: Host and maintain the IE511.org and IECOMMUTER.org websites, mobile device interfaces, social media platforms, and other regional products/outreach as assigned. Respond and coordinate inquiries with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff that are San Bernardino County specific and generated from 511, 1-866- RIDESHARE as well as direct referrals. Oversee and maintain an Inland Empire focused database of commuters with SANBAG owning all Documents and Data (hard copy and electronic formats), as that term is defined in Section F(1) of the Agreement. Administer and provide technical assistance for the IE Commuter program including employer, employee, and end user account management, SCAQMD Rule 2202, Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) certified South Coast Air Quality Management District calculations, coordinating and implementing employer surveys and Ridematching including disseminating and production of RideGuides both electronically and paper, incentive program management, production of output reports including analysis of survey results, and maintaining marketing logs and commuter diary. Coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers to assist multi -site and multi - jurisdictional employers and Employee Transportation Coordinator's (ETC) within San Bernardino County as well as related worksites outside of the County. Conducting ETC networking meetings including bi-annual workshops, rideshare week kick-off event and recognition events. Marketing to employers, employees, and end user commuters including Rideshare Connection broadcast a -mails and eNewsletters, administering commuter promotions and incentives, graphic design for various collateral materials including but not limited to brochures, RideGuides, posters, banners etc., and web based advertising, and developing messaging for print, media, and social media advertising campaigns. Support for employer and community events as well as transportation forums. Market and administer the regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program and Vanpool Subsidization Program to employers in San Bernardino County. Maintain and increase the County's leased Park and Ride lot program. Operate the 511 program through phone and web services, providing enhancements, resolving issues, conducting marketing and periodic surveys. Conduct special projects and studies, as assigned, and work closely with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff on all special projects and/or studies that impact the San Bernardino Rideshare and/or 511 programs. RCTC is to advise at the start of and coordinate with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff of all potential enhancements, issues, and periodic surveys if such tasks could change/alter the current Rideshare and/or 511 programs in San Bernardino County. 15-1001245 Page 12 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 126 In addition, SANBAG rideshare/511 staff to work closely at the start with RCTC and to be in partnership during the review and subsequent approval process of the rideshare and/or 511 marketing and communication plan, messaging development, media buy, advertising materials or any incentive outreach changes. RCTC shall also provide SANBAG rideshare/511 staff with the following reports: (i) Employer Activity Report for all employers with signed Employer Participation Agreements; (ii) Program Performance; (iii) Program Management (employer output, employer management, eRideGuides, contact management, etc.); (iv) 511 mobile app statistics; (v) 511 calls and Interactive Voice Response statistical data; (vi) ie511.org statistics; and (vii) any newly developed reports. Goals and Performance Measures: 1. Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 490 regulated and non -regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the development and implementation of trip reduction programs and for technical assistance. 2. Work with approximately 175 employers on AVR/Transportation surveys and AVR calculations. 3. Maintain an accurate database of approximately 47,400 active San Bernardino County commuter registrants, resulting from completed commuter surveys at approximately 175 San Bernardino County employers. 4. Disseminate approximately 8,900 RideGuides to San Bernardino County commuters at approximately 490 worksites. 5. Provide assistance to seven multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in San Bernardino County representing 23 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as Los Angeles and Orange counties. 6. Develop and implement three employer transportation network meetings, one promotional marketing campaign at San Bernardino employer worksites, and other events. 7. Produce and disseminate other regional marketing materials, as standalone campaigns within the Inland Empire or regional campaigns in coordination with the five County Transportation Commissions. 8. Broadcast 12 Rideshare Connection a -mails to San Bernardino County employers. 9. For the two -county area, respond to approximately 2,000 inquires/calls from commuters who work or reside in San Bernardino or Riverside counties, via 1-866-RIDESHARE, 511, direct referrals and other internet sources. 10. Manage and operate the 511 system which will be available to commuters 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. 11. The 511 phone system will provide assistance to approximately 21,000 callers per month throughout the year. The system will have the capacity to handle approximately 100,000 concurrent callers. 12. The www.ie511.org website will potentially receive approximately 40,000 unique visitors per month. Website will be able to handle approximately 100,000 concurrent users. 13. Continue 511 marketing/outreach and coordinating development of the marketing plan, campaign themes, surveys, studies and potential collateral materials for San Bernardino County with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff, before the tasks are implemented. 14. Conduct and coordinate periodic surveys with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff to determine the 511 program use, effectiveness and customer satisfaction. 15. Provide IE511 website, phone, and mobile application enhancements/upgrades as needed. 15-1001245 Page 13 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 127 16. Finalize work with Caltrans and the Interactive Voice Response/map contractor to implement HERE data for closure of gaps in detection on the traffic map. 17. Collaboratively with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff, explore possible opportunities to improve the 511 system for the motorists and residents of both counties. Rideshare Incentive Programs The SANBAG $2/day Rideshare Incentive offers San Bernardino County residents who commute to work, up to $2 a day (in gift cards) for each day they participate in a rideshare mode, during a three-month period. The Vanpool Incentive Program provides up to $1,800 over nine months in discounted vanpool fares. The SANBAG Rideshare Plus program provides ongoing ridesharers who reside in San Bernardino County a Rideshare Plus Rewards Book with discounts to local merchants plus 200,000 additional discounts available online. RCTC to manage and operate the Incentive Programs listed above, and to coordinate and discuss with SANBAG rideshare/511 staff when potential changes to the Incentive Programs are being considered. Goals and Performance Measures: 1 The SANBAG $2/day Rideshare Incentive program will enlist 1,100 County residents, who commute to work to 125 employers in Southern California. These participants on average have a one-way commute distance of 27.59 miles and the goal is to reduce 109,000 one way vehicle trips from the roadways. 2. The SANBAG Rideshare Plus program will consist of 6,400 members when the program is at its highest membership. Members will work at employment sites from 350 employers throughout Southern California. 15-1001245 Page 14 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 128 Attachment "B" NON -DISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT This Non -Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement is entered into as of 2016, by and between SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("SANBAG") and the undersigned interested party ("Interested Party"). SANBAG and Interested Party shall individually be referred to as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties". 1. RECITALS 1.1 WHEREAS, SANBAG and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") entered into that certain Implementation of San Bernardino County Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs Agreement dated July 1, 2016 ("Agreement"). 1.2 WHEREAS, in the Agreement, SANBAG has designated approved key personnel requiring access to the web based software ("Software") implementing the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs to receive log -in information for the Software. 1.3 WHEREAS, in the Agreement, SANBAG has agreed to protect the personal information accessible through the Software of public participants in the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs, and has agreed to obtain non -disclosure and confidentiality agreements with all approved key personnel receiving access to the Software. 1.4 WHEREAS, SANBAG has designated Interested Party as a Key Personnel to receive Confidential Information, as those terms are defined in Agreement, and Interested Party desires to receive and protect the Confidential Information upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. 2. TERMS 2.1 Confidential Information. "Confidential Information" shall include: all user names, passwords, or other log -in credentials used, provided, or accessible in connection with the Software; all data or information accessible in connection with the Software; all source code, work product, proprietary information, server logs, technical information, trade secrets, and proprietary systems related to the Software; all market research, financial data, operating procedures, and third party confidential and proprietary information; all personal information of Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs participants, including but not limited a participants residence address, employment address or hours of employment for the purpose of assisting private entities in the establishment or implementation of carpooling or ridesharing programs as required by California Penal Code section 637, as well as names, biographical information, demographic information, use data, contact information, or similar personal information of participants; and any and all data, content, materials, documents and/or other information related to the Software and/or Employer and Commuter Trip 15-1001245 Page 15 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 129 Reduction/Rideshare Programs designated, from time to time, by RCTC as confidential information. 2.2 Interested Party shall hold the Confidential Information in confidence, shall take reasonable precaution to protect and keep the Confidential Information confidential, shall not disclose the Confidential Information to any person or party not specifically authorized in writing by RCTC to receive the Confidential Information, or as and to the extent required by law or legal process, and shall not use the Confidential Information for any purpose other than as necessary to operate the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs. Further, Interested Party shall not disclose a participant's personal information, including but not limited to a participant's residence address, employment address or hours of employment for the purpose of assisting private entities in the establishment or implementation of carpooling or ridesharing programs, to any other person or use such information for purpose other than as necessary to operate the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs without the prior written consent of the participant as required by California Penal Code section 637. Interested Party shall limit access to the Confidential Information only to individuals who are directly involved in operation of the Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs and further provided that such individuals are legally bound to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information on substantially the same terms as set forth herein. The foregoing restrictions on disclosure shall not apply to Confidential Information which is (a) already known by the recipient, (b) becomes, through no act or fault of the recipient, publicly known, (c) received by recipient from a third party without a restriction on disclosure or use, or (d) independently developed by recipient without reference to the other party's Confidential Information. 2.3 Immediately upon (i) the expiration or termination of Interested Party's employment or association with SANBAG, (ii) the expiration or termination of the Agreement, or (iii) a request by RCTC, Interested Party shall turn over to RCTC all Confidential Information and all documents or media containing any such Confidential Information and any and all copies or extracts thereof. 2.4 RCTC is an express third party beneficiary of this Non -Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE 15-1001245 Page 16 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 130 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Non -Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement on the date first written above. By: Title: SANBAG INTERESTED PARTY By: Raymond W. Wolfe, PhD Executive Director Name: 15-1001245 Page 17 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 131 Attachment "C" Federal Flow Down Provisions ARTICLE I -- FISCAL PROVISIONS A. The Cost Principles and Procedures set forth in 48 CFR Ch. 1, Subch. E, Part 31, as constituted on the effective date of this Contract shall be utilized to determine allowability of costs under this Contract and may be modified from time to time by written amendment of the Contract. B. RCTC agrees to comply with Federal Department of Transportation procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. . C. Any costs for which payment has been made to RCTC that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowed under 48 CFR, Ch.l, Subch E, Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, or 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards shall be repaid by RCTC to Agency. SANBAG shall then repay RCTC for such costs, if such costs are for the Services, using local funds. ARTICLE II — AUDITS, THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING, RECORDS RETENTION AND REPORTS A. RCTC agrees that any and all subcontractors of RCTC performing Work under this Agreement will comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement applicable to the portion of Work performed by them. CONSULTANT shall incorporate the following applicable provisions of this Agreement into their subcontracts regardless of the tier: Article I -- Fiscal Provisions, and this Article II -- Audits, Third Party Contracting, Records Retention and Reports. B. RCTC shall provide SANBAG, or authorized representatives or agents of SANBAG, including but not limited to Caltrans, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), access to CONSULTANT'S records that are directly related to this Agreement for the purpose of inspection, auditing or copying. RCTC shall maintain all records related to this Agreement in an organized way in the original format, electronic and hard copy, conducive to professional review and audit, for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment by SANBAG, except in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising out of this Agreement in which case RCTC agrees to maintain records through the conclusion of all such litigation, appeals or claims related to this Agreement. RCTC further agrees to maintain separate records for costs of 15-1001245 Page 18 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 132 work performed by amendment. RCTC shall allow SANBAG, Caltrans, FHWA, FTA or any duly authorized agents to reproduce any materials as reasonably necessary. D. The cost proposal and/or invoices for this Agreement are subject to audit by SANBAG and/or any state or federal agency funding this Project at any time. After RCTC receives any audit recommendations, the cost proposal shall be adjusted by RCTC and approved by SANBAG's Project Manager to conform to the audit recommendations. RCTC agrees that individual items of cost identified in the audit report may be incorporated into the Agreement at SANBAG's sole discretion. Refusal by RCTC to incorporate the audit or post award recommendations will be considered a breach of the Agreement and cause for termination of the Agreement. Any dispute concerning the audit findings of this Agreement shall be reviewed by SANBAG's Chief Financial Officer. RCTC may request a review by submitting the request in writing to SANBAG within thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the audit report. SANBAG shall pay all costs related to the audit. Further, a breach under this clause shall not imply any wrongdoing by RCTC. SANBAG shall pay RCTC for work completed up to the date of termination if such costs are for the Services. As determined necessary by SANBAG, such payment will be made using local funds. E. RCTC agrees that RCTC's travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as Project Costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. ARTICLE III. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY During the term of this Agreement, RCTC shall not willfully discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, political affiliation or disability. RCTC agrees to comply with the provisions of Executive Orders 11246, 11375, 11625, 12138, 12432, 12250, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment Practices Act and other applicable Federal, State and County laws and regulations and policies relating to equal employment and contracting opportunities, including laws and regulations hereafter enacted. ARTICLE IV. GENERAL A. Subcontracts must include provisions for terminating the subcontract for cause or convenience by SANBAG. SANBAG's own preferred language may be used. B. Subcontracts must include administrative, contractual or legal remedies in instances of the subcontractor violating or breaching the Agreement terms. ARTICLE V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 15-1001245 Page 19 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 133 RCTC shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act in performing Work under this Agreement. 15-1001245 Page 20 of 20 173 3 6.00013\24602108.1 134 AGENDA ITEM 81 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Riverside Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2015/16 Short Range Transit Plan BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve modification to Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) Fiscal Year 2015/16 operating assistance funding to reflect an additional $460,410 in state Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds to cover anticipated operating expenses related to the Perris Valley Line (PVL); 2) Reprogram the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating amount of $460,410 originally identified for the PVL operating expenses to capital funding to support the development of RTA's central operations and maintenance facility; 3) Approve modification to RTA's FY 2015/16 capital program to reflect an additional $911,498 in FY 2014/15 Proposition 1B California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) and $257,009 in Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) program residual amount from the FYs 2008/09 and 2009/10 appropriations; and 4) Approve amendments to RTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the changes outlined above. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 8, 2015 meeting, the Commission approved and adopted the FY 2015/16 operating and capital funding allocation for Riverside County based on the FY 2015/16 SRTP updates prepared by the eight transit operators providing public transit services in the County. Since that time, RTA received additional grant funding including the FY 2014/15 LCTOP operating grant funds and Proposition 1B state bond funds from the FY 2014/15 CTSGP-CTAF, as well as additional PTMISEA funds resulting from Riverside County's share of the remaining funds from the FYs 2008/09 and 2009/10 PTMISEA program. The modification details for RTA are outlined as follows. Agenda Item 81 135 RTA Operating Assistance Table 1a of Attachment 1 outlines the currently approved funding structure for RTA's operating assistance which is contained in the approved FY 2015/16 SRTP, while Table 1b shows the modified funding distribution. RTA is requesting approval to modify its operating funding as follows: • Reflect an increase of $460,410 in other revenue (LCTOP grant funds) to support the operations of the planned bus connections at the PVL Commuter Rail stations; and • Reflect a decrease of $460,410 in LTF operating assistance due to receipt of LCTOP grant funds. With the above adjustments, the net effect on RTA's FY 2015/16 operating assistance is $0. RTA Capital Assistance Table 2a of Attachment 2 shows the currently approved capital requests based on the RTA's original SRTP capital funding plan, and Table 2b shows the proposed capital project requests based on actual revenues received by RTA during FY 2015/16. Modification requests are as follows: • Move the excess amount of $460,410 in LTF operating funds to capital funding to partially cover RTA's operations and maintenance facility construction expenses; • Reflect an additional $257,009 in Proposition 113 capital funds (residual funding from the FYs 2008/09 and 2009/10 PTMISEA appropriations) to be used toward the construction cost for the operations and maintenance facility project; and • Reflect $911,498 in Proposition 1E3 FY 2014/15 CTSGP-CTAF awarded to RTA for operations and facilities security projects. With the above adjustments, RTA's capital assistance for FY 2015/16 will be increased by $1,628,917. Financial Impact Commission staff reviewed RTA's revised plan and recommends approval of its operating and capital funding modifications and related amendments to its FY 2015/16 SRTP. Since the Proposition 113 and LCTOP funds are directly allocated and disbursed to RTA, no Commission budget amendment is required to support these requests. RTA's LTF operating funds of $460,410 will be moved to capital funds; however, the net impact to the total Commission budget is $0. Agenda Item 81 136 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2015/16 Amount: $0 Source of Funds: Western County LTF Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 002210 86101 601 62 86101 ($460,410) Transit Operating 002210 86102 601 62 86102 $460,410 Transit Capital Fiscal Procedures Approved: \144,3 � Date: 04/14/2016 Attachments: 1) RTA FY 2015/16 Operating and Capital Assistance by Funding Source — Operating Assistance 2) RTA FY 2015/16 Operating and Capital Assistance by Funding Source — Capital Assistance Agenda Item 81 137 Riverside Transit Agency FY 2015/16 Operating and Capital Assistance by Funding Source Table 1 - Operating Assistance Table la. Currently Approved Operating Funding Plan ATTACHMENT Project Description Capital Project Number Total Amount of Funds LTF STA Measure A Operating Assistance Section 5307 - Riv-San Bernardino Section 5307 - Temecula/Mumeta Section 5307 - Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5307 Carryover Section 5310 Section 5311 Section 5339 Bus & Bus Facilities Section 5316 JARC Section 5317 New Freedom Prop 1B PTMISEA Prop 1 B Security Farebox Other Revenue Operating Assistance Operating Assistance - CTSA GASB 43/45 ARC OCTA 794 CommulerLink 212 & 217 (JARC) Extended Fixed Route Service (JARC) Travel Training Capitalized Preventive Maintenance Capital Cost of Contracting DAR Plus First Mile Last Mile Farebox(Cash, Tix, Passes) Interest Income Advertising Revenue CNG Sales RINS/LCFS Credits Medi-Cal Reimbursement Wentworth Bldg Lease 38,257,820 800,000 1,350,000 146,032 970,000 620,000 413,000 6,531,250 6,906,250 286,812 195,000 11,573,423 20,000 15,000 185,000 150,000 600,000 60,000 34,054,047 1,350,000 417,000 256,600 22,500 1,306,250 1,381,250 217,131 23,400 300,000 1,824,000 800,000 146,032 22,400 41,000 417,000 209,000 4,500,000 1,400,000 3,000,000 1,800,000 500,000 725,000 625,000 300,500 579,773 70,000 90,000 136,000 62,000 28,681 11,573,423 20,000 15,000 185,000 150,000 300,000 60,000 Total: Operating 569,079,587 $39,328,178 $0 $2,833,432 $6,526,000 $3,000,000 $2,300,000 $1,350,000 $300,500 $579,773 $0 $70,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $11,800,104 $730,000 Table 1b. Modified Operating Funding Plan Operating Assistance Operating Assistance - CTSA GASB 43/45 ARC OCTA 794 CommulerLink 212 & 217 (JARC) Extended Fixed Route Service (JARC) Travel Training Capitalized Preventive Maintenance Capital Cost of Contracting DAR Plus First Mile Last Mile Farebox(Cash, Tix, Passes) Interest Income Advertising Revenue CNG Sales RINS/LCFS Credits Med$CaI Reimbursement Wentworth Bldg Lease PVL Operating -Cap & Trade Low Carbon Transit Ops Program (LCTOP FY14/15) 38,257,820 800,000 1,350,000 146,032 970,000 620,000 413,000 6,531,250 6,906,250 286,812 195,000 11,573,423 20,000 15,000 185,000 150,000 600,000 60,000 - 34,054,047 1,350,000 417,000 256,600 22,500 1,306,250 1,381,250 217,131 23,400 300,000 (460,410) 1,824,000 800,000 146,032 22,400 41,000 417,000 209,000 4,500,000 1,400,000 3,000,000 1,800,000 500,000 725,000 625,000 300,500 579,773 70,000 90,000 136,000 62,000 28,681 11,573,423 20,000 15,000 185,000 150,000 300,000 60,000 460,410 Total: Operating $69,079,587 $38,867,768 $0 $2,833,432 $6,526,000 $3,000,000 $2,300,000 $1,350,000 $300,500 $579,773 $0 $70,000 $90,000 $0 50 $11,800,104 51,190,410 DIFFERENCE BET. CURRENTLY APPROVED & MODIFIED OPERATING PLAN SO -$460,410 SO SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S460.410 138 Riverside Transit Agency FY 2015/16 Operating and Capital Assistance by Funding Source Table 2 - Capital Assistance Table 2a. CurrentlY Approved Capital Funding Plan ATTACHMENT Project Description Capital Project Number Total Amount of Funds LTF STA Measure A Operating Assistance Section 5307 - Riv-San Bernardino Section 5307 - Temecula/ Mumeta Section 5307 - Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5307 Carryover Section 5310 Section 5311 Section 5339 Bus & Bus Facilities Section 5316 JARC Section 5317 New Freedom Prop 1 B PTMISEA Prop 1 B Security Farebox Other Revenue Revenue Vehicles- (9) Expansion COFR FY16-1 1,726.740 1.726.740 Revenue Vehicles -(16)COFR -Rep! FY16-2 3,228,040 484,206 2,743,834 Revenue Vehicles -(29)DAR-Repl FY16-3 2,713.820 407.073 2,306,747 Non -Revenue Vehicles - (22) Support Vehic4 FY16-4 546,480 109,296 437,184 Non -Revenue Vehicle-(1) Travel Training Ca FY16-4 23,000 23,000 Associated Transit Improvements P (16-5 1,100,000 220,000 802,000 46,000 32,000 Capitalized Tire Lease FY16-6 386,857 77,371 309,486 Maintenance/Support Equipment P (16-7 217,100 43,420 173,680 Facility Maintenance FY16-8 1,017,530 203,506 814,024 Information Systems P (16-9 329,120 65,824 263,296 Bus & Bus Facilities Projects FY16-10 2,053,525 410,705 1,642,820 Hemel UZA Bus & Bus Facilities Projects FY16-11 422,356 84,471 337,885 RapidLink Stops / Shelters FY16-12 255,219 255,219 Downtown Riv Stop Improvements -Cap & Trade Low Carbon Transit Ops Program (LCTOP FY14/15) P (16-13 58,822 58..822 Ops & Facilities Security Projects FY16-14 911,470 911,470 Ops/Mainl Facility P (16-15 12,045,649 12,045,649 Total: Capital S27,035,728 $0 S4,087,831 $0 $2,362,694 $3,226,810 $2,338,747 SO $23,000 $0 $1,980,705 $0 $0 $12,045,649 $911,470 $n $58,822 Table 2b. Modified Capital Fundinsl Plan Project Description Capital Project Number Total Amount of Funds LTF STA Measure A Operating Assistance Section 5307 - Riv-San Bernardino Section 5307- Temecula/ Mumeta Section 5307- Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5307 Carryover Section 5308- Clean Fuels Section 5309 Section 5311 Section 5316 JARC Section 5317 New Freedom Prop 1B PTMISEA Prop 18 Security Farebox Other Revenue Revenue Vehicles- (9) Expansion COFR FY16-1 1,726,740 1,726,740 Revenue Vehicles -(16)COFR -Repl FY16-2 3.228.040 484.206 2.743.834 Revenue Vehicles -(29)DAR-Repl FY16-3 2,713,820 407,073 2,306,747 Non -Revenue Vehicles - (22) Support Vehic4 FY16-4 546,480 109,296 437,184 Non -Revenue Vehicle-(1) Travel Training Ca FY16-4 23,000 23,000 Associated Transit Improvements FY16-5 1,100,000 220,000 802,000 46,000 32,000 Capitalized Tire Lease P (16-6 386,857 77,371 309,486 Maintenance/Support Equipment FY16-7 217,100 43,420 173,680 Facility Maintenance P /16-8 1,017,530 203,506 814,024 Information Systems FY16-9 329,120 65,824 263,296 Bus & Bus Facilities Projects FY16-10 2,053,525 410,705 1,642,820 Hemel UZA Bus & Bus Facilities Projects FY16-11 422,356 84,471 337,885 RapidLink Stops/Shelters FY16-12 255,219 255,219 Downtown Riv Stop Improvements -Cap & Trade Low Carbon Transit Ops Program(FY 14/15) FY16-13 58,822 58,822 Ops & Facilities Security Projects FY16-14 911,470 911,470 Ops/Mainl Facility -Construction FY16-15 12,045.649 12.045.649 Ops/Mainl Facility - Construction 257,009 ' 257,009 Ops/Mainl Facility 460.410 460,410 Ops & Facilities Security Projects 911,498 911.498 Total: Capital $28,664,645 $460,410 $4.087.831 $0 $2,362,694 $3,226,8101 $2,338,747 $0 $23,000 $0 $1.980.705 $0 $0 $12,302,658 $1.822.968 $0 $58.822 DIFFERENCE BET. CURRENTLY APPROVED & MODIFIED CAPITAL PLAN $1,628,917 $460,410 So So $0 $0 go $0 go $0 $0 $0 $0 $257,009 $911,498 $0 $0 139 AGENDA ITEM 8J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study Ad Hoc Committee Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Rail Forecasting Services for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-25-072-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 14-25-072-00, with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for rail forecasting services related to Phase 2 of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan for an additional amount of $4,085,000, and a total amount not to exceed $6,002,095; 2) Approve a budget adjustment for Fiscal Year 2015/16 to increase revenues for a federal grant and expenditures for study costs each in the amount of $300,000; and 3) Authorize the Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study (Study), undertaken by the Commission in coordination with Caltrans and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is intended to study the potential implementation of an intercity passenger rail service between Indio in the Coachella Valley through the San Gorgonio Pass to Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles, California. At inception, the project was divided up into two distinct phases of work. The Commission took the lead for Phase 1 by committing $4.2 million of Proposition 18 Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds toward the work. Subsequent to that action, the Commission in partnership with Caltrans was able to secure an FRA grant in the amount of $2,982,050 for Phase 2. Local match to the federal grant in the amount of $1,102,950 is to be provided by Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds allocated and transferred to the Coachella Valley Rail Fund. Agenda Item 8J 140 In June 2014, the Commission executed Agreement No. 14-25-072-00 with HDR for Phase 1 of the Study in an amount not to exceed $1,847,645. Phase 1 consisted of the following elements: Task 1— Project Work Plan Development and Public Outreach Task 2 — Preliminary Service Planning and Alternatives Analysis Development DISCUSSION: In September 2015 upon completion of the Phase 1 work, the Commission authorized Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with HDR for an additional amount of $69,450, and a total amount not to exceed $1,917,095. The amendment funded services needed to complete the work for the obligation of the FRA grant. The appropriate paperwork was filed in late fall 2015, and staff has now been notified by the FRA and Caltrans that the grant has been approved, obligated, and executed with Caltrans. The grant will cover the following Phase 2 tasks, which are to be performed by HDR: Task 3 —Tier 1 Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report Task 4 — Project Service Development Plan Accordingly, staff now requires Commission approval for a second amendment to the agreement with HDR for an additional amount of $4,085,000 in order to fund the work covered by the FRA grant. The total agreement not to exceed amount is $6,002,095. The HDR scope of services for these tasks is attached to this report. Next Steps At its September 2015 meeting, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to execute the fund transfer agreement with Caltrans, pursuant to legal review. Caltrans is currently in the process of sending the fund transfer agreement to the Commission, and staff expects to be able sign the transfer agreement and, pending Commission approval of the amendment with HDR, begin work by June 1, 2016. Agenda Item 8J 141 Financial Information No FY 2015/16 $ 300,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $3,785,000 Source of Funds: FRA grant funds, TDA Budget Adjustment: Yes No FY 2015/16 004202 414 41410 245 25 41401 $219,000 (federal revenue) 004202 65520 245 25 65520 $300,000 (expenditures) GL/Project Accounting No.: FY 2016/17 004202 414 41410 245 25 41401 $2,763,050 (federal revenue) 004202 65520 245 25 65520 $3,785,000 (expenditures) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/ 4,14� Date: 04/25/2016 Attachment: HDR Scope of Services for Tasks 3 and 4 Agenda Item 81 142 SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Description: The Consultant team will undertake program -level environmental analysis in accordance with NEPA and CEQA requirements. Extensive coordination with the regulating agencies responsible for reviewing an approving the environmental documents will be incorporated into all aspects of the following environmental documentation subtasks. Assumptions: For scoping purposes, a full Tier 1 Programmatic EIS/EIR is assumed to be required to advance the project. TASK 3.1 COORDINATION MEETINGS AND QA/QC DOCUMENTATION Description: The coordination meetings included in this subtask are specific to Task 3 environmental work. The meetings included under this subtask are separate from the general administrative meetings in Task 1. These meetings will involve various project stakeholders, as well as key team discipline leaders. In addition, the scope includes senior level quality review of the major deliverables prior to submittal, ongoing subconsultant management and coordination as well as monthly conference calls. Assumptions: Up to eight (8) coordination meetings will be required. Meetings will be held at the RCTC or HDR offices in Riverside, CA. Additional teleconferences will be necessary throughout the development of the Programmatic EIS/EIR between the environmental technical team, RCTC, and FRA. An estimate of the level of effort is included in this task. Deliverables: Meeting agendas and meeting summaries TASK 3.2 NEPA/CEQA SCOPING AND OUTREACH Description: The purpose of this task is to complete scoping and outreach work in accordance with NEPA and CEQA requirements. Specific subtasks included under this item include: preparation of the Notice of Intent (NOI); development of agency and stakeholder plans; coordination and participation in environmental scoping meetings; updates to, and finalization of, the project Purpose and Need; development of the scoping report; coordination with RCTC and FRA; and completion of revisions to the public involvement plan, if needed. Deliverables: Preparation of the NOI; updated agency and stakeholder plan; scoping meeting agenda and minutes; final project Purpose and Need statement; copies of correspondence with FRA and other agencies; and an updated public involvement plan. These deliverables are in coordination with the subtasks listed in Task 3.5 (Public Outreach Implementation). RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 143 Page 1 TASK 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Description: The Consultant team will conduct environmental technical studies as outlined below, and in accordance with the Service NEPA Tier 1 EIS and CEQA Programmatic CEQA requirements for a corridor program. The studies outlined below are assumed to be needed at this time, but a final list will need to be determined at the conclusion of the Alternatives Analysis, and developed in conjunction with direction from RCTC and FRA. Based on this project being at a "planning/corridor-level", this scope and cost does not include project -level analysis of any specific improvements because those improvements are not currently known and need to be identified through the planning and preliminary engineering tasks of this scope. As part of future, project -level engineering and analysis, it is anticipated that specific improvements will be evaluated through Service NEPA — Tier 2 (e.g., EA, CE) and tiered CEQA documentation (e.g., Negative Declaration, project -level EIR). This scope and budget assume up to two rounds of review for the environmental technical studies and up to four alternatives for consideration. TASK 3.3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT Description: A biological resources constraints analysis report will be prepared documenting the potential for sensitive vegetation communities, suitable habitat for state and federal listed species, and waters of the U.S./waters of the State. The report will include a summary of existing conditions, descriptions of data collection methodologies, and inventories of habitats/species with potential to occur within the Project's Study Area. The report will discuss the potential impact on state and federally protected vertebrates (no species surveys are proposed), in addition to a discussion of the project alignment(s) role as a wildlife corridor and its importance in providing linkage between habitats. The potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, and identification of feasible mitigation and/or avoidance measures will also be presented. Assumptions: Study Area — The proposed biological assessment area would extend approximately 150 feet to either side of the proposed centerline of up to four (4) alignment alternatives. No focused species surveys are proposed and no project level jurisdictional delineation or vegetation mapping is proposed. Deliverables: Biological Resources Constraints Analysis Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT Description: A cultural resources technical study documenting known National Register and California Register properties, including sites of historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural significance, will be completed for each design alternative. The consultant team will coordinate early in the process with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to develop procedures adequate for their approval of the joint CEQA/NEPA document. As part of the analysis, the consultant team will develop an Area of Potential Effects (APE) map, commensurate with conceptual engineering or construction -level engineering required for design -build implementation, where applicable. The technical study will incorporate information from the constraints analysis as well as data from RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 144 Page 2 the State Historical Resources Inventory and the Historic Property Directory, and record searches from the appropriate regional Cultural Resources Information Centers. An assessment of archaeological site sensitivity, consisting of desktop analysis of available information, will identify locations that retain sensitivity for containing buried archaeological sites within the project footprint. We will notify the project design team of locations of known cultural resources to provide opportunities for design changes to avoid these areas, if possible. The technical study will include program -level impact analysis and potential mitigation recommendations based on known resources, general resource types, and potential archaeological sensitivity for CEQA/NEPA compliance. The consultant team will assist RCTC with AB 52 consultation. This will consist of writing a letter to the Native American Heritage Commission to request a Sacred Lands File search, assistance with identifying appropriate tribes to contact, and preparing draft Native American consultation letters to be sent on RCTC letterhead. One round of follow-up telephone calls or emails will be completed on behalf of RCTC. RCTC will be informed of all responses and requests made by the recipients of the AB 52 outreach efforts. If the RCTC enters into formal consultation with one or more Native American Tribes and requests assistance with consultation, consulting staff will attend no more than two consultation meetings in person and participate in no more than two consultation teleconferences. Participation in each meeting includes one hour of preparation and two hours of documentation for each meeting. Assumptions: Field surveys will not be conducted as part of the program level CEQA/NEPA analysis. However, record searches will be obtained from the South Central Coastal Information Center and the Eastern Information Center. Resource identification, National Register/California Register evaluation, and determinations of eligibility, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470(f) will be deferred to a later date through the execution of an agreement document developed for the proposed project. At the NEPA Tier 1 EIS and CEQA Program EIR level of analysis, the project's study area will be evaluated based on publically available data. No field visits are included in the scope of work. Assistance with Native American consultation and historical organization outreach will consist of preparing correspondence to the Native American Heritage Commission and identified tribes and individuals, and preparing letters to identified historical organizations, for mailing and follow-up by RCTC. RCTC will notify the consultant team of all responses and outcomes of this effort. Preparation of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) will include one in - person meeting in Riverside, three conference call meetings, four mailings to interested parties, three drafts of the PA and one final PA. CAD or GIS files of the alternatives for the technical report will be provided to undertake GIS and mapping work for the project. Deliverables: Cultural and Historic Resources Report (One draft and final APE map for the Build Alternatives, two Draft and one Final Cultural and Historic Resources Report, three Draft and one Final Programmatic Agreement), AB52 letters and meeting documentation. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 145 Page 3 TASK 3.3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REPORT Description: Air quality and climate change specialists will evaluate regional criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with project construction and operation. We will use construction data provided by RCTC and the CaIEEMod emissions model to quantify construction related criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. Operational criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with changes in motor vehicle traffic in the project study area and region will be evaluated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data from the traffic engineer and the CT-EMFAC emissions model, while operational emissions associated with rail activities will be based on operational data provided by the RCTC and accepted methodology and published emission factors (e.g., U.S. EPA emission factors, etc.). To evaluate carbon monoxide impacts at affected intersections, we will us Ca!trans' Transportation Project - Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, while particulate matter (PM)10/PM2.5 impacts will be evaluated using EPA's Quantitative PM hot - spot guidance, and no interagency consultation will be undertaken as part of the analysis of PM10/PM2.5 impacts. Mass emissions associated with project construction and operations will be compared to South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional significance criteria, while local criteria pollutants will be quantified and compared to SCAQMD localized significance criteria. Potential local health risks associated with construction and locomotive diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions will be estimated around proposed station locations and along up to four railroad alignment alternatives using the AERMOD dispersion model and project -specific construction and locomotive DPM emissions rates. Because FRA is the lead agency and the project is subject to general conformity, we will evaluate whether the project meets general conformity requirements by evaluating annual construction and operational emissions against the federal de minimis thresholds. In the event emissions exceed the de minimis thresholds, we will perform a general conformity determination demonstrating the project meets conformity requirements through an amended scope of work. Climate change impacts associated with construction of the project will be evaluated using applicable guidance, protocols (such as the Climate Registry), and thresholds (such as those recommended by the SCAQMD and the CEQ's Draft climate change NEPA guidance). Assumptions: At the Tier 1 NEPA and CEQA level of analysis, the project's study area will be evaluated based on publically available data and "windshield" type field visits. Assumes that the project meets general conformity. In the event emissions exceed the de minimis thresholds, we will need to perform a general conformity determination demonstrating the project meets conformity requirements through an amended scope of work. Construction emissions will be addressed qualitatively at the Tier 1 NEPA/CEQA level. Deliverables: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT Description: A noise and vibration report will evaluate noise and vibration impacts associated with the project and up to four (4) railroad alignment alternatives. Impacts associated with operation of rail service will be evaluated at a programmatic level. The noise RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 146 Page 4 I-N and vibration analysis will be conducted using guidance developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for conventional rail noise and vibration impact assessments. FRA relies upon this FTA guidance in evaluating improvements to conventional passenger rail lines and stationary rail facilities. The Consultant team will also utilize the FTA General Assessment procedure in the programmatic evaluation of noise and vibration from rail service operations. We will estimate the location of noise impact contours for existing and project noise levels that define the outer limit of an impact corridor or area. The inventory of impacts will then be used to identify locations where mitigation will be likely. Based on this project being at a "planning/corridor-level," no project -level analysis of any specific improvements will be conducted because those improvements are not currently known and need to be identified through the planning and preliminary engineering tasks for this scope. Assumptions: At the Tier 1 NEPA and CEQA level of analysis, the project's study area will be evaluated based on publically- available data and identification of land uses using Google Earth Pro. No field visits are anticipated. Specific analysis of construction noise is not addresses at the Tier 1 NEPA/CEQA level. Deliverables: Program -level Noise and Vibration Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.5 VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Description: A visual impact analysis (VIA) will evaluate programmatic impacts based on guidance from the Caltrans' Visual Impact Assessment Guide. Using information collected by consultant during the field survey, and supplemented by the consultant team's desktop survey using Google Maps Street View, the analysis will utilize methods and protocol developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and adopted by Caltrans in combination with elements of other visual resources assessment methods. The Consultant team will produce graphics and representative photographs for use during evaluation of visual impacts that could result from implementation of the project, along with information gathered from local planning documents, discussions with local agencies and appropriate project staff, and relevant project information, including design issues, public comments and concerns, and aerial photographs. The analysis will generally define the visual resources within the program area, and will evaluate and describe the existing visual quality and character at the landscape level, broadly characterize viewer groups and viewer responses, and evaluate and describe potential impacts to visual resource caused by the proposed program, identifying mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts. Assumptions: At the NEPA Tier 1 EIS and CEQA Program EIR level of analysis, the project's study area will be evaluated based on publically available data and information and photographs obtained from HDR's "windshield" type field survey. No visual simulations will be prepared at this programmatic level of review. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 147 Page 5 I-N Deliverables: Visual Impact Analysis (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Description: A high level traffic study will be conducted to support a full Tier 1 EIS. Consistent with the requirements of a Tier 1 EIS, an existing, existing with project, opening and future year traffic analysis will be performed. For the purpose of this task, the traffic analysis will utilize any recent counts (peak hour and 24-hour) available for intersections and arterials within each station's vicinity. Where counts are not available, appropriate peak hour and 24-hour traffic counts for intersections and arterial segments will be collected as needed. In addition, 24-hour counts will be collected at select at -grade crossings which are likely to warrant grade separation due to the project. For each scenario (existing with project, opening year and future year), detailed intersection and arterial level of service will be performed for the "preferred" alternative. For the purpose of the EIR impact analysis, corridor vehicle - miles of travel (VMT) will be estimated for each scenario. Mitigation measures where appropriate will be identified for the "preferred" alternative. Deliverables: Traffic Impact Analysis Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.7 FLOODPLAIN IMPACT EVALUATION REPORT Description: The consultant team will prepare a programmatic level floodplain impact evaluation to address the objectives of Executive Order (EO) 11988 and DOT Order 5650.2 in order to document areas of potential impact to existing FEMA regulatory floodplains, a discussion of potential impacts based upon the proposed preliminary improvements, and required regulatory processes (FEMA and County) associated with up to four (4) railroad alignment alternatives. Floodplains and floodways mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the study area will be identified. Potential project impacts to the FEMA 100-year floodplain and floodway for the project alternatives will be qualitatively assessed and measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigation will be identified in the report. Assumptions: The Floodplain Impact Evaluation Report will not include any project specific analysis of engineered features and will focus on general rail route alternative alignments. The report assumes no collection of FEMA models. Deliverables: Floodplain Impact Evaluation Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.8 PRELIMINARY WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Description: Although rail projects within railroad ROW are not required to comply with the local MS4 permit conditions for the post - construction phase, they are required to comply with the Post Construction Standard of the Construction General Permit (CGP). RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 148 Page 6 Because improvements within the railroad corridor will not change existing and proposed conditions (rail land use — assuming no impervious areas are included), the assumption is made that no hydromodification impact will be imposed for post construction in the railroad corridor. However, it will be assumed that the only project improvements that impose a hydromodification impact will be those outside of railroad right of way (e.g., stations, parking lots, bus passenger stops, etc.) that add impervious areas. To summarize the stormwater quality impacts and related mitigation measures, one Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) will be prepared with the understanding that the project's rail alignments are included in three MS4 permits, each with their respective WQMP template (Santa Ana Region, Order no. RB8-2010-0036 (San Bernardino County), Order no. RB8-2010-0033 (Riverside County); and Colorado River Region, Order no. R7-2013-0011 (Riverside County)). The PWQMP will be a hybrid, taking into account the features unique to each applicable permit order (as well as the post -construction standard of the CGP) and will take a conservative approach by only analyzing each feature of each alternative that imposes the worse -case hydromodification impact. Assumptions: The PWQMP will not include alternative analysis or detailed pre -/post -hydrologic analysis. Deliverables: Preliminary Water Quality Management Report (PWQMP) (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.9 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT Description: The analysis will be divided into two parts: A description of the existing socio-economic conditions within the four (4) railroad alignment alternative corridors, including detailed population characteristics such as race and ethnicity, age, education and income, as well as employment and workforce trends. Where appropriate and where available, this information will be provided at a lower geographical level (Zip code or Census block group) for those areas immediately contiguous to the project; and an assessment of expected economic and fiscal impacts (job creation/retention and increase in the state/local tax base, in particular) of the project's capital expenditures (preliminary engineering, stations, tracks, etc.) in the four -county project area, using the IMPLAN® input-output model. Up to four (4) railroad alignment alternatives will be analyzed, compared, and ranked. If needed, any considered avoidance or mitigation strategies will be discussed. Such strategies may include construction phasing or other scheduling actions to mitigate any negative impact on business revenue in the corridor. Deliverables: Economic and Financial Impact Analysis Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.10 HAZARDOUS WASTE AND MATERIALS ANALYSIS REPORT Description: An evaluation of publicly -known hazardous materials sites that could affect decision making for the corridor alignment alternatives will be identified and incorporated into a hazardous waste and materials report. The analysis will include obtaining regulatory records from federal, state, county, and tribal databases for sites with reported releases or environmental conditions on up to four (4) alignment alternatives (within 1/8 mile of centerline of each alternative). The regulatory data will be provided by EDR, in RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 149 Page 7 tabular, descriptive detail, and map form. The consultant team will provide analysis of the regulatory data to classify each type of listing relative to the possibility of the presence of contaminants in the subsurface, and rank such sites accordingly (many listed sites are listed for regulatory paperwork issues that do not result in releases to the environment). If needed, any considered avoidance or mitigation strategies will be discussed. Assumptions: Although the regulatory records list will include all records required by the ASTM E 1527-13 protocol, the report will not conform to the ASTM E 1527-13 definition of a "Phase I". For this high-level analysis of hazardous materials issues, HDR will not perform the site reconnaissance, interviews, or historical data review (pre -records) that is required of a full ASTM-conforming Phase I . Deliverables: Hazardous Waste and Materials Analysis Report. (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.11 SAFETY AND SECURITY ANALYSIS REPORT Description: HDR will consider safety issues as they relate to station hazards, boarding and disembarking hazards, and right-of-way hazards, as well as visibility obstructions for operators, motorists, and pedestrians. Security as it pertains to station locations, design, layout, and parking is another aspect of safety that will be evaluated to determine if the safety of transit passengers or surrounding communities is compromised or more susceptible to criminal activity. Deliverables: Safety and Security Analysis Report (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.12 ENERGY ANALYSIS Description: Direct energy consumption involves energy consumed by vehicle propulsion (automobile and locomotive) and station operations (lighting, temperature control, water conveyance, maintenance). Indirect energy consumption involves the one-time energy expenditure involved in constructing the physical infrastructure associated with the project. The Consultant team will quantify direct and indirect energy consumption associated with the proposed project to the extent feasible. The analysis will capture the net effect of project -related mode -shift and trip redistribution. Gasoline, diesel and electricity demand and consumption will be expressed in British Thermal Units (BTUs) for comparison among project alternatives based on the most recent Energy Study guidance available for FHWA, Energy Requirements for Transportation Systems, as well as other accepted methodologies and protocols. Deliverables: Energy Analysis Report (two rounds of review and comment) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 150 Page 8 TASK 3.3.13 PROGRAM -LEVEL LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Description: The Consultant team will review the applicable local and regional plans including general plans, specific and area plans to identify policies related to transit projects as well as plans for areas through which the alignments may traverse. The Consultant team will assess the project's consistency and compatibility with the existing and future land uses and plans in the corridor area. Assumptions: No site visit will be conducted for this analysis. Existing land use information will be based on respective local general plan land use maps and will be verified by Google Maps if necessary. Policy and zoning consistency will not be done at a project -level. Policy consistency with regional plans will be included. Deliverables: Program -Level Land Use Technical Memorandum (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.3.14 SECTION 4(F) ANALYSIS Description: The consultant team will evaluate publicly -owned parks and recreational resources, waterfowl and wildlife refuges and significant historic resources within the area of potential effect within and adjacent to the railroad alignment alternatives. For the purposes of Section 4(f) analysis, significant historic resources would be NRHP-listed or eligible properties identified in the Section 106 consultation. Section 4(f) also applies to archeological sites that are on or eligible for the National Register and that warrant preservation in place, including those sites discovered during construction. The finding of effect statements and the mitigation measures would be used in the Section 4(f) analysis. The analysis will determine the presence and location of any Section 4(f) resources and provide an ordinal ranking of each alternative's relative potential for impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The analysis will not include development of avoidance alternatives, least harm analysis, or otherwise make determinations that any alternatives would or would not result in use of a Section 4(f) resource. Inclusion of avoidance strategies and recommendations for removal of alternatives from consideration may be included in the analysis. Assumptions: At the Tier 1 NEPA and CEQA level of analysis, the project's study area will be evaluated based on publically available data and "windshield" type field visits. It is assumed that the study area for identifying Section 4(f) resources would encompass the area within 500 feet of the railroad centerline on either side of each alternative alignment. Deliverables: Inputs for Environmental Document Sections TASK 3.3.15 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Description: The consultant team will evaluate the potential for environmental justice/community impacts that would include a demographic profile of the community as well as types of land uses that exist in the surrounding community. This will include a determination as to whether minority or low-income communities are located within the study area for the project alternatives. The RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 151 Page 9 evaluation will address potential impacts to the local community during construction and operation. The analysis will also address issues associated with the displacement of residents, consistency with existing land use policies, and compatibility of the project with existing land uses. Other impacts discussed in the traffic, air quality, noise, geology, and hazardous materials technical reports will also be referenced in this memo, if applicable. Assumptions: At the Tier 1 NEPA and CEQA level of analysis, the project's study area will be evaluated based on publically available data. Deliverables: Community Impact Assessment/Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Description: The purpose of this task is to prepare the environmental document and focus on the likely environmental affects for the proposed alternatives throughout the entire corridor relating the type of service being proposed. The analysis of impacts will be based upon the conceptual engineering prepared in Task 2. The environmental document will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and CEQA requirements. Additional subtasks included with this work item include: preparation of the project alternatives definition; development of the impact analysis methodology memorandum; development of an annotated EIS outline; an administrative screencheck draft document; preparation of the Draft joint NEPA/CEQA Tier 1 environmental document and Notice of Availability (NOA); Administrative Final joint NEPA/CEQA Tier 1 environmental document; preparation of the Final joint NEPA/CEQA Tier 1 environmental document and NOA; and coordination of the Record of Decision (ROD) and Notice of Determination (NOD). Deliverables: Impact analysis methodology for FRA review and acceptance; Annotated EIS outline for FRA review and acceptance; Administrative draft document for FRA review and comment; Draft document and draft NOA for FRA review and approval; Administrative final document for FRA review and comment; Final document and draft NOA for FRA review and approval; and Draft ROD. TASK 3.4.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION Description: The Consultant will review the project alternatives already considered in the Alternatives Analysis Report and, if possible, identify new feasible NEPA/CEQA level alternatives that have not yet been considered. The Consultant will confirm the current descriptions of Project variants to be considered in the EIS. Where descriptions of specific Project elements are not presently defined, the Consultant Team will develop appropriate assumptions to allow the document preparation to continue. For example, if alignments for drainage conveyance infrastructure are not precisely defined, the Consultant will evaluate an expanded corridor width to capture any potential sensitive environmental resources. The approach is to allow engineering design to progress with flexibility by defining an expanded project footprint; minimizing potential delay in the project schedule as the environmental clearance and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 152 Page 10 permitting process move forward. Key to this approach is identifying a large enough corridor that will capture the evolving engineering design while balancing the need to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources and the required evaluation of these resources in the Tier 1 EIS/EIR. This description will be provided to RCTC and FRA for review and concurrence. We will revise and update the definition based on RCTC and FRA review. The work completed in this sub -task will be incorporated into the environmental document either directly or as a technical reference. Deliverables: Preparation of Project Alternatives Definition for EIS/EIR (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY MEMORANDUM Description: Prior to conducting any technical study, a written methodology statement shall be prepared by the Consultant and submitted for review and approval by RCTC and FRA. The purpose of the methodology statement is to establish agreed upon methodologies and assumptions prior to the start of the technical studies, corresponding to the issues outlined in the following sections. The methodology statement shall be prepared using the guidelines provided in the following paragraphs. The methodology statement will be first reviewed by RCTC and FRA, if necessary, through a methodology meeting (or correspondence) with the consultant team. Deliverables: Impact Analysis Methodology Memorandum (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.4.3 ANNOTATED EIS/EIR OUTLINE Description: The consultant will develop an annotated EIS/EIR outline for approval by RCTC and FRA. The consultant proposes the following outline for the Draft EIS/EIR: Executive Summary. The Consultant will develop an executive summary at the conclusion of the environmental analysis that will include the contents required by CEQA, including identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The executive summary will also include a NEPA summary table identifying adverse environmental effects where mitigation is required and a table that provides a summary comparison of the alternatives considered. Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter will provide a description of the project history and background, and a summary of the major contents contained in each of the chapters comprising the EIS/EIR. Chapter 2 will include the Purpose and Need statement as required by NEPA, as well as a statement of RCTC and FRA's goals and objectives as required by CEQA for implementing the Project. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 153 Page 11 Chapter 2, Description of Project Alternatives. Chapter 3 will consist of the final Project Alternatives Description developed in conjunction with Task 3.5.1 of this scope of work and will include any necessary updates in response to agency comments. Chapter 3, Affected Environment. To minimize the potential delay to the project schedule the Consultant proposes to begin preparing the resource analysis of the EIS/EIR in two stages. In the first stage, the Consultant will initiate preparation of the resource sections where surveys and technical reports have been completed to characterize existing conditions of the "Affected Environment" for the EIS/EIR. The affected environment chapter will describe the environmental baseline for which the environmental consequences of the project will be determined. To minimize effects to the project schedule and immediately following the notice to proceed, the Consultant will migrate the setting information developed into Chapter 3 while the proposed alternatives are being developed under Task 3.4.1. This will include updating and migrating the resource -based graphics. This chapter will also identify other environmental documents incorporated by reference into the EIS/EIR to minimize the reanalysis of project features all ready considered in other certified environmental documents. If there are no impacts to a particular resource category, a brief summary of why impacts would not occur will be provided. For those resources potentially affected, the Consultant will describe direct and indirect effects; residual/unavoidable adverse effects; cumulative effects; and mitigation under each resource area. CEQA significance criteria, and a determination of whether impacts would be significant under those criteria, will be included in the document. This chapter will include the following sections to cover the range of potential environmental effects along with issues identified as part of the CEQA NOP Scoping process: • Environmental Impact Assessment Criteria/Thresholds of Significance • Cumulative Projects Considered and Approach Cumulative Impact Assessment • Land Use and Planning. This section will integrate information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.13 of this scope. This section would also consider destruction or disruption of human -made resources, community character and cohesion, and potential land acquisitions, displacement, and relocations based on information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.15. • Socioeconomic Characteristics. This section will integrate information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.9 of this scope of work. • Community and Neighborhood Impacts. This section will integrate information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.15. • Transportation. This section will integrate information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.6. • Visual Quality and Aesthetics. This section will integrate information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.5. • Cultural Resources. This section will integrate information developed in conjunction with Task 3.3.2. • Community Services and Facilities. This section will provide an evaluation of effects to local public services providers (e.g. fire protection, law enforcement, etc.) and other community facilities including schools. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 154 Page 12 " S a f e t y a n d S e c u r i t y . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h 3 . 3 . 1 1 . " A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l p r o v i d e a n e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d e f f e c t s t o l o c a l a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g i m p o r t a n t f a r m l a n d s . " F l o o d p l a i n a n d H y d r o l o g y . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 7 . " W a t e r Q u a l i t y . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 8 . " H a z a r d o u s W a s t e a n d M a t e r i a l s . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 1 0 . " A i r Q u a l i t y a n d G l o b a l C l i m a t e C h a n g e . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 3 . " N o i s e a n d V i b r a t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 4 . " E n e r g y . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e p r o j e c t ' s e n e r g y r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n p o t e n t i a l a n d w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 1 2 . " U t i l i t i e s . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l c o n s i d e r p r o j e c t r e l a t e d e f f e c t s o n l o c a l a n d r e g i o n a l p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e u t i l i t y p r o v i d e s i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , p o t a b l e w a t e r , s a n i t a r y s e w e r c o l l e c t i o n , a n d e l e c t r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . " S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n . T h e S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) e v a l u a t i o n p r e p a r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 1 4 w i l l b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e E I S / E I R a s a s t a n d a l o n e c h a p t e r o f t h e d o c u m e n t . " E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e . T h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e a n a l y s i s p r e p a r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 1 5 w i l l b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e E I S / E I R a s a s t a n d a l o n e c h a p t e r o f t h e d o c u m e n t . " B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n t e g r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n d e v e l o p e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T a s k 3 . 3 . 1 . " C u m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s . T h e C o n s u l t a n t w i l l i n c l u d e a s e c t i o n t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n s i d e r s t h e o t h e r p a s t , p r e s e n t , a n d p r o b a b l e f u t u r e p r o j e c t s p r o d u c i n g r e l a t e d i m p a c t s , a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e S t a t e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s ( 1 4 C a l i f o r n i a C o d e o f R e g u l a t i o n s [ C C R ] S e c t i o n 1 5 1 3 0 ) a n d " r e a s o n a b l y f o r e s e e a b l e " f u t u r e p r o j e c t s u n d e r N E P A i m p l e m e n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s ( 4 0 C o d e o f F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s [ C F R ] 1 5 0 8 . 7 ) . C h a p t e r 4 . O t h e r C E Q A C o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l i n c l u d e a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e P r o j e c t ' s p o t e n t i a l t o r e s u l t i n g r o w t h - i n d u c i n g i m p a c t s , a s u m m a r y o f t h e c u m u l a t i v e l y c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p a c t s , a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s u p e r i o r a l t e r n a t i v e p e r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f C E Q A . T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l a l s o i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t i r r e v e r s i b l e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m m i t m e n t s o f r e s o u r c e s , a d v e r s e i m p a c t s t h a t c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s h o r t - t e r m u s e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e a n d e n h a n c e m e n t o f l o n g - t e r m p r o d u c t i v i t y p e r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f N E P A . C h a p t e r 5 . P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d A g e n c i e s C o n s u l t e d . T h e C o n s u l t a n t w i l l s u m m a r i z e t h e p u b l i c a n d a g e n c y c o o r d i n a t i o n e f f o r t s t h a t h a v e b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d d u r i n g t h e p r o j e c t . T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l i n c l u d e p u b l i c a n d a g e n c y p a r t i c i p a t i o n R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y - S a n G o r g o n i o P a s s R a i l C o r r i d o r S e r v i c e D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n 1 5 5 P a g e 1 3 and scoping; list of contacts; list of agencies, organizations, and persons who received copies of the document; and public comments and responses. Deliverables: Annotated EIS/EIR outline (two rounds of review and comment) TASK 3.4.4 ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENCHECK DRAFT EIS/EIR Description: The consultant will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR on behalf of FRA and RCTC to assess potential effects of the project alternatives using information developed in technical analyses identified under Task 3.3 in this scope of services. Per the requirements of NEPA, the EIS/EIR will provide an equal level of analysis for each of the alternatives considered. Comments received during the RCTC's and FRA's review will be distributed to the project team for incorporation into Draft EIS/EIR. Deliverables: Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR - Version1 (5hardcopies and 1 CD of the document; 2 hardcopies and 1 CD of supporting Appendices) TASK 3.4.5 DRAFT EIS/EIR AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Description: The Consultant will conduct a final QA/QC of the Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR) before submittal for reproduction and distribution. The Consultant will be responsible for distribution of the DEIS/DEIR to responsible and trustee public agencies and other interested organizations and individuals as identified by RCTC and FRA. The Consultant will assist RCTC and FRA with the preparation of the Draft Notice of Availability (NOA), and submit this to RCTC and FRA for review and approval. This scope assumes that FRA will coordinate with the EPA to publish the NOA in the Federal Register. The Consultant can assist RCTC in preparing and filing the CEQA Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse and preparing the public NOA. Deliverables: • Public Draft EIS/EIR (15 hardcopies and 1 CD of the document; 5 hardcopies and 1 CD of supporting Appendices) TASK 3.4.6 ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL EIS/EIR Description: The Consultant will prepare a screencheck draft Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR) for distribution to members of the Project team for review and comment. The Consultant will take the lead, with assistance from RCTC and FRA staff and technical consultants, in receiving and preparing responses to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. For the purposes of this scope, the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 156 I-N Consultant has assumed that efficiencies in responding to comments will be made by developing master responses to major topical comments, thereby facilitating a single response to multiple comments covering the same technical topic and/or issue area. The public comments and responses to those comments will be included in a screencheck FEIS/EIR. The screencheck FEIS/EIR will also identify corrections and revisions to the text of the DEIS/EIR that may be required in response to public comments and review and include a draft of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) per the requirements of CEQA for mitigation measures identified in the EIS/EIR. Due to the unpredictable nature of comments to be received, an adjustment in the budget may be necessary in order to respond to the comments within the budget and schedule proposed. For purposes of this scope of work, Consultants level of effort related o responses to comments is limited to 25 letters or a total of 200 individual comments. In addition, if the comments are such a nature that would require further and extensive analyses, evaluating different alternatives, and/or re -circulating the Public Draft EIS/EIR, the Consultant will alert RCTC of the issues and discussion potential budget augmentation at that time. Deliverables: Screencheck Draft FEIS/EIR #1 (10 hardcopies and 1 CD of the document) TASK 3.4.7 FINAL EIS/EIR AND DRAFT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Description: Once revisions have been made to the screencheck draft EIS/EIR, the Consultant will submit up to 15 hard copies to RCTC and FRA for certification under CEQA and preparation of the Record of Decision (ROD) under NEPA. This task assumes attendance at up to two (2) public meetings in conjunction with the certification of the EIR by RCTC and the filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD) and NOC and Environmental Document Transmittal with the County Clerk(s) and State Clearinghouse. The Consultant will also prepare the CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for RCTC review and comment before finalizing. This task also includes a meeting with FRA to cover any final comments or concerns prior to publishing the NOA in the Federal Register. Deliverables: Public Final EIS/EIR (15 hardcopies and 1 CD of the document) TASK 3.4.8 DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION Description: The Consultant will assist the FRA with the preparation of the Draft Record of Decision (ROD) and submit the Draft ROD to the FRA project manager for review and approval. The Consultant proposes a teleconference with FRA and key members of RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 157 Page 15 the team to resolve any outstanding comments prior to FRA finalizing the ROD. The Consultant will finalize the comment report and mitigation measures for inclusion in the Draft ROD. Deliverables: Draft ROD (5 hardcopies and 1 CD of the document) TASK 3.5 CONTINUED OUTREACH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Description: The purpose of this task is to continue with the public and stakeholder outreach plan developed and approved in Task 1, and initiated in Task 2. The public outreach team will provide full support of the required NEPA/CEQA outreach activities as follows: coordination and execution of a NOP/NOI public scoping meeting and public hearing; organize and administer liver Webinars of meetings; development of presentations; research and identification of best appropriate meeting locations; development and distribution of meeting notifications through newspaper advertisements, direct mail, E-blasts, and various social media platforms; administration of the project website; compilation and recording of all public comments. Deliverables: Meeting notices (hard and electronic copies), meeting materials (fact sheets and PPT presentation), meeting summary report; and compilation of all comments for inclusion in the environmental document. Task 3.5.1 Public Outreach Plan The Consultant will work with RCTC and FRA to update the Public Outreach Plan (POP) developed during the Preliminary Service Development Plan phase of the project. The updated POP will serve as a blueprint for outreach activities. The POP promoted project engagement by agencies, organizations, elected officials, residents, business operators, potential system users and other stakeholders. The goal of the POP is to provide meaningful opportunities for notification and involvement prior to and during the Service Development Plan/Conceptual Engineering Tier 1 Environmental phase of this project. Task 3.5.2 Stakeholder Database The Consultant will build upon the existing stakeholder database developed during the previous Phase I of the project. Additional contacts will be added, and the database will be maintained with entries obtained through inquiries and other outreach activities. The database is formatted to allow categorization, sorting and report generation for RCTC and FRA upon request. Task 3.5.3 Collateral Materials RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 158 The Consultant will work with the team to prepare a full set of collateral materials to educate and inform the public about the project activities. Materials will include an updated fact sheet, periodic status bulletins, PowerPoint presentations, meeting notices and exhibits. The material will help community members along the corridor gain a better understanding of the project, including proposed routes, station locations, project timeline and overall process. Materials will be used for presentations, public meetings, briefings and website postings. Task 3.5.4 Outreach Website The Consultant will update the existing webpage to make the transition from the current Preliminary Service Development Phase into the new phase. The updated site will feature new text, graphics, photographs and other information tailored to project activities. Task 3.5.5 Social Media Social networking will continue to be an important element of stakeholder outreach. Facebook and Twitter will be used to inform users of public meetings and project updates. These social media platforms will complement traditional forms of public outreach. Task 3.5.6 Neighborhood/Community Presentations and Local Events The Consultant will help inform community groups and agencies about project activities through presentations and participation in local events. These activities offer forums to provide updates, manage expectations, build rapport, gain greater understanding of questions and concerns from stakeholders, dispel misconceptions and add to the contact database. A list of community groups will be established, and presentations or event booths will be scheduled. Task 3.5.7 Elected Official Briefings During the Preliminary Service Development Plan phase (Phase I), the Consultant coordinated one-on-one briefings with elected officials to solicit input about challenges, potential riders, and local issues. The Consultant will schedule a second round of elected official briefings to focus on station placement, which is expected to be an item of key interest along the corridor. Task 3.5.8 Technical Advisory Committee The Consultant will continue to provide support for quarterly Technical Advisory Committee meetings that were launched during the Preliminary Service Development Plan phase (Phase I). Support will include scheduling meetings, maintaining the participant list, coordinating meeting logistics, and preparing meeting notes. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 159 Task 3.5.9 Electronic Surveys The Consultant will prepare periodic electronic surveys to gauge public opinion about the Rail Corridor Service. These surveys can be conducted using "Survey Monkey" or a more detailed geo-social service, such as MetroQuest. In either case, the Consultant will draft and finalize the survey content, monitor participation, and provide survey results to the project team. Task 3.5.10 Public Meetings The Consultant will plan and staff two public scoping meetings upon commencement of the environmental studies and two public hearings upon release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/DEIS). Meetings are recommended to be held in both the San Gorgonio Pass and in the Coachella Valley. For both sets of meetings, the following is recommended: Meeting Format The Consultant is able to provide support for public meetings in a variety of formats: • Open house session with exhibits and one-on-one discussions with staff • Formal presentation with audience question and answer session • Formal presentation, followed by open house -style discussions with staff • Small group interactive sessions • Presentation using "Turning Point" software, which allows each participant to use an electronic voting tool to anonymously vote his/her preference, with the input appearing immediately on the screen for the audience to view • Webcast to accompany one of the public scoping meetings and one of the public hearings Meeting Logistics, Notification & Documentation Logistics and support activities will include research of meeting locations and availability, coordination of meeting dates and times with the project team, organization of facility details (including equipment and insurance, if applicable), coordination of court reporter services, preparation of notices and advertisements, Spanish interpretation, meeting set-up and clean-up, meeting materials (sign -in sheets, comment cards and directional signage), photography, refreshments and preparation of a Scoping Meeting Summary Report. For the public hearings, all comments will be recorded and submitted to the technical team for response in the FEIS/FEIR. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 160 Page 18 Meeting notification will comply with all the NEPA and CEQA requirements. The Consultant also will discuss with RCTC and FRA additional outreach strategies to reach the public in a cost-effective way. The Consultant is well versed in notification techniques used to support environmental processes. Tools may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Newspaper Advertisements — Display ads placed in area newspapers • Direct Mail — Postcards or flyers sent to parcels within the sphere of the project alternatives and the existing stakeholder database. Meeting notices also be distributed via City Hall, Chambers of Commerce, libraries and businesses. • Email Notices — Meeting notices sent electronically to the existing stakeholder database, with links added to partner websites and other resource websites. • Social Media — The project website, Facebook page and Twitter account will be used to post meeting notices. Facebook ads can also be placed to increase public awareness. Links to project stakeholder web and social media sites will also be pursued to increase meeting visibility. Meeting Materials The Consultant will help develop materials to support the public scoping meetings and public hearings, including: • Updated project fact sheet • A PowerPoint presentation specific to the scope of alternatives under review, as needed • Turning Point questions, as needed • General information exhibits Task 3.5.11 Public Inquiry Response & Monitoring The Consultant will respond to public inquiries received via the website, telephone or in person, following protocol established by the team. The Consultant will research inquiry details and respond promptly and professionally, and create/maintain a log of inquiries and responses. Contact information from inquiries will be added to the stakeholder database for future reference. Task 3.5.12 Team Coordination The Consultant will attend various project team meetings and conference calls with RCTC and FRA regarding public outreach issues on an ongoing basis. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 161 FN TASK 4 SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) DEVELOPMENT Description: The Service Development Plan (SDP) describes and quantifies the fundamental characteristics of the intercity passenger train service that is proposed for the preferred alternative in the Corridor. The SDP lays out the overall scope and approach for the proposed service by clearly demonstrating the rationale, goals, and objectives for the service; identifies the alternatives considered for the proposed service; analyzes the selected alternative that addresses the identified rationale, goal, and objectives; and demonstrates the operational and financial feasibility of the proposed service. Development of the SDP will be based on a technical memo developed in Task 2.0 that includes the proposed annotated outline for the Project's Service Development Plan (SDP) and details the proposed methodology for analyzing the required SDP components. TASK 4.1 TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE AND NEED Description: Working from the Purpose and Need statement developed in Task 2, Consultant will prepare a refined discussion of the purpose and transportation need that will be served by the new passenger rail service. Deliverables: Refined Purpose and Need Statement TASK 4.2 SERVICE RATIONALE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Description: Based on the identified and forecasted transportation need discussed in Task 4.1, Consultant will describe how the proposed service will cost-effectively address the need, based on current and forecasted travel demand and capacity condition. The rationale will draw on other sections of the SDP to provide a qualitative and quantitative discussion of the cost, benefits, and risks of implementing new passenger rail service on the preferred corridor. TASK 4.3 PLANNING METHODOLOGY Description: This section of the SDP will be based on the planning methodology developed in the SDP Planning Outline and Technical Memo prepared in Task 2.0 and approved by FRA. It will discuss the planning horizon, public involvement plan, major assumptions, and risk identification and mitigation. Deliverables: Refined Service Development Plan Methodology Memo RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 162 Page 20 I-N TASK 4.4 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES Description: In this section of the SDP, the Consultant will identify the No -Build and Build route alternatives, and describe the alternatives development, refinement, and screening process. The basis for the selection of the preferred route alternative will be discussed. The work supporting this section of the SDP will be based on the coarse and fine -level screening and benefit -cost analysis conducted as part of Task 2.0, and the analysis completed as part of Task 3.0. TASK 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Description: The environmental evaluation process that led to the decision on the preferred corridor will be summarized. Details related to the key criteria used in the evaluation will be presented, which include: purpose and need for the action; technical feasibility (physical route characteristics, engineering constraints, capacity constrained existing facilities or infrastructure, safety); economic feasibility (market potential and/or ridership, capital and operating costs, transportation and public benefits); and preliminary environmental constraints. A description of the identified environmental impacts and mitigation required will be included to ensure that the environmental commitments are met at the appropriate times within the service development program. TASK 4.6 OPERATIONS PLAN AND MODELING Description: This section of the SDP will discuss the work and outputs associated with operations modeling work for the Corridor, including railroad operation simulations, equipment and crew scheduling analyses, and yard and support operations. TASK 4.6.1 OPERATING PLAN AND TRAIN SCHEDULES Description: Using the outputs from the Train Performance Calculation (Task 4.6.2.4), the Consultant will prepare a draft operating plan and preliminary passenger train schedule. TASK 4.6.2 OPERATIONS MODELING AND PLANNING Description: Operations modeling will be performed using the Berkeley Simulations Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) model, for all segments of the Tier 1 (Corridor) level preferred alternative where Tier 2 (Project) level studies are unlikely to require alternative RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 163 Page 21 alignment evaluation. The model developed for the Indio -Los Angeles model in this study will include operations up to, but not within, Los Angeles Union Station. TASK 4.6.3 OPERATING EQUIPMENT Description: Potential rolling stock for the Corridor will be selected and coordinated with the other component corridors of Amtrak in California, the Los Angeles — San Diego — San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN), and with Ca!trans. Rolling stock will be described and characterized, and its probable high-level acquisition, operation and maintenance costs projected. Rolling stock analysis will be coordinated with the development of timetables and ridership and revenue forecasting. TASK 4.6.4 RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS Description: Inputs for the rail infrastructure network used in the operations modeling will be identified in coordination with RCTC and the host railroads. Planned and funded infrastructure improvements in California anticipated for completion by 2040 (or 20 years after the assumed five-year project construction and implementation period) and additional proposed improvements identified during the Service Development Planning process will be incorporated into the conceptual engineering for the preferred alternative. Major infrastructure -related assumptions used in the operations modeling — including such items as signal system characteristics, maximum unbalance, and turnout speeds — will be documented. TASK 4.6.5 EQUIPMENT AND TRAIN CREW SCHEDULING Description: Outputs for the equipment and train crew scheduling modeling will include equipment and train crew resources to meet the proposed operating timetable for the Corridor service. In addition, discussion about the turning of equipment and train crews at endpoints will be presented. Assumptions: Operations modeling necessary to support the Tier 1 Service Level effort and the SDP will not include Los Angeles Union Station. RTC modeling for operations at Los Angeles Union Station will be modeled by others under separate agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro). Modeling of major intermediate freight railroad terminals that may be penetrated by the preferred alternative (e.g. San Bernardino and West Colton) will be deferred until future Tier 2 (project) studies and would be reliant upon cooperation and operating data from the host freight railroads, Amtrak, and Metrolink. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 164 Page 22 TASK 4.7 STATION AND ACCESS ANALYSIS Description: The Consultant will conduct a brief conceptual study of potential passenger rail station locations for selected cities for the preferred alternative. The Consultant will prepare conceptual location plans for up to five station sites. These conceptual plans will use aerial photos as a base and show primary elements such as platforms and station structures, and other site elements such as parking areas. The designs will also explain station location, access, operation, intermodal connectivity, and how the station relates to adjacent land uses. The Consultant will prepare conceptual -level capital cost estimates for the stations noted above. Consultant assumes that the selection of the actual station location within each community will be the subject of a Tier 2 Project Level analysis. The effort identified in this task will be limited it the work necessary to inform the Tier 1 EIS and to generate a comparative cost estimate. TASK 4.8 TRAVEL DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECAST Description: Ridership and revenue forecasts for the preferred alternative will be developed. Outputs to be included are: travel demand and revenue from the service including ridership and revenue forecasts that specify the number of passengers and boardings/alightings at stations. TASK 4.9 MAINTENANCE AND LAYOVER FACILITIES Description: The Consultant will identify a new or existing maintenance facility location on the Corridor, based on the passenger schedules and operating plan. Potential layover facility locations will also be identified for the terminals of the service at Los Angeles and Indio. Conceptual options for up to two locations will be developed at Indio. The Consultant will conduct a conceptual site assessment for required maintenance and layover facilities based on the operating plan. The Consultant will develop conceptual facility operating plans and identify maintenance and layover facility requirements. Based on these facility requirements, the Consultant will develop a conceptual cost estimate for necessary maintenance and layover facilities. Conceptual maintenance and layover facility plans will show primary elements such as facility structures, access tracks, storage tracks, roadways and parking areas. The conceptual plans will also explain facility locations, access, operations, and how the site relates to adjacent land uses. Conceptual plans with a vicinity map and cost estimates will be limited to the work necessary to inform the Tier 1 EIS/EIR. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 165 Page 23 TASK 4.10 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND PROJECTIONS Description: The Consultant will prepare a financial plan identifying capital and operating funding requirements and sources for the Corridor. Operating costs and revenues, capital replacement costs, and other institutional arrangements affecting the program finances will be included for each phase of service. A basis of estimation will be provided outlining the methodology used in preparing the capital and operating cost estimates including contingencies and inflation factors applied. Estimates of farebox recovery and operating costs per passenger mile will be developed to determine whether the Corridor meets the State of California's Uniform Performance Standards for corridor passenger rail services. Deliverables: Amtrak will provide operating and maintenance cost estimates for the service without cost to the Consultant. TASK 4.11 CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROGRAMMING Description: The conceptual engineering efforts will be focused on the preferred alternative as determined in Task 3.0 and will identify improvements to the existing infrastructure that will be required to allow implementation of the proposed passenger rail service at speeds of up to 79 mph. The conceptual engineering will also consider opportunities for a phased approach that may consist of incremental increase in frequency of service or additional station stops and schedule revisions that provide additional passenger -service options. Consultant will prepare schematics of the preferred corridor. Schematics will be on 11 x17" sheets and at a scale showing not more than 15 track miles per sheet. Schematics will include existing and proposed railroad mileposts, stations, main tracks, controlled sidings, turnout locations and size, yard entrances and exits, grade crossings and grade separations, bridges, horizontal and vertical alignment, and freight and passenger train track speeds existing and proposed. TASK 4.12 BENEFIT -COST ANALYSIS Description: Consultant will prepare two separate economic analyses for the preferred route alternative and operating plan: a Benefit Cost Analysis and an Economic Impact Statement. The Benefit -Cost Analysis framework is an analysis of the net benefits of an alternative relative to the no -build option — the cost to build and operate the service related to the benefits of the improvement to the social welfare delivered by the program. The Benefit -Cost Analysis conducted for the study will comply with California statutes. The Benefit -Cost Analysis will include transportation benefits from new improved intercity passenger rail service and environmental and safety benefits. Both short-term economic impacts that result from the engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction spending associated with the program as well as the long-term economic impacts that result from additional rail service provided by RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 166 Page 24 the program will be analyzed. The IMPLAN input -out model software will be used as a basis for assessment of short-term economic impacts. The outputs of the modeling will provide further estimates of long-term job, employment income, and value-added impacts. TASK 4.13 CORRIDOR SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING PLAN Description: Consultant will prepare a service implementation and phasing plan, based on the information prepared and key decisions made during the development of the conceptual engineering and capital programming, station and access analysis, operations modeling, demand and revenue forecasting, financial planning and performance, and benefit -cost analysis elements for the preferred corridor. It will include a detailed description of the proposed service; a phased plan for construction and service implementation; policy actions needed at the federal and state levels; risks and mitigation; and agreements identified for the Service Development Program. The plan will identify the strategy of maximizing the benefit of incremental funding and describe how the implementation of enhanced regional passenger rail service can be divided into discrete phases, if feasible. Assumptions: A single implementation scenario is assumed for a full -build implementation in year 2020. It is assumed that federal funding and local match will be available at the proposed implementation year of 2020, and that local funding will be available for operation and maintenance costs not recovered from farebox and food sales from 2020 to 2040. TASK 4.14 DRAFT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Description: Consultant will prepare a draft Service Development Plan for the review and approval by the Commission and FRA. The SDP will be assembled from the work completed in tasks 4.1 through 4.13 above. Consultant will provide the Commission with one electronic copy of the Draft SDP for review and transmittal to FRA. Consultant assumes that the Commission will provide one consolidated set of comments incorporating both the Commission's and FRA's reviews. Deliverables: Draft Service Development Plan TASK 4.15 FINAL SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Description: Consultant will prepare a Final SDP based on the comment provided on the Draft. Deliverables: Final Service Development Plan RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 167 I-N TASK 4.16 COORDINATION AND MEETINGS Description: Task includes subconsultant coordination and coordination meetings that are specific to the development of the SDP. The meetings included under this subtask are separate from the general administrative meetings included in Task 1. These meetings will involve various project stakeholders, as well as key team discipline leaders. Assumptions: Up to twenty (20) coordination meetings will be required. Meetings will be held at the RCTC or HDR offices in Riverside, CA. Deliverables: Meeting agendas and meeting summaries RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan 168 Page 26 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This item is to update the Commission on the activities occurring related to the upcoming adoption of the 2016 STIP by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). CTC staff released its STIP programming recommendations for each region on April 22. The recommendations incorporate the reduction of $754 million due to decreased state revenues that occurred after the regions submittals in December 2015. CTC staff provided each region its fair share target of the $754 million and reported that some regions had no projects programmed, and therefore some regions would need to reduce its STIP programming by more than the target reduction. Due to the funding shortfall and the need to reduce programming by $754 million, CTC's staff recommendations included the following: • No new projects or project phases; • Delays to current projects; and • Geographic balance. The impact to Riverside County's STIP proposal included the reduction of $32 million in construction funding on the Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway interchange project, which was approved at the Commission's February 2016 meeting, and the deletion of $2.9 million in right of way funding for the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange by CTC staff since it was a new STIP project. In reviewing CTC staff recommendations for other regions, the impact to the Commission's STIP was slightly above its target reduction; however, the Commission fared better than other regions. Staff recognizes the difficult situation the CTC staff had to deal with and appreciate their effort to achieve the $754 million reduction in a fair and equitable manner. Agenda Item 9 169 The CTC's letter to the California State Legislature, summary table of the STIP recommendations, Riverside County's STIP recommended project listing, along with the full report, are attached. The full report is also available at http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/STIP/2016 STIP/2016 STIP Staff Recommendations.pdf. The CTC's letter indicates the 2016 STIP cycle marks the largest scaling back since the creation of the STIP 20 years ago through SB 45. As a result, CTC staff is also recommending no new projects be added to the STIP for the next 5 years so projects recommended for deletion or partial deletion are given priority for inclusion in future STIP cycles. The 2016 STIP recommendations will be presented for adoption at the CTC's May 18-19 meeting in Stockton. Attachments: 1) CTC Letter to the California State Legislature Dated April 22, 2016 2) Summary of 2016 STIP Staff Recommendations by County Summary Table 3) 2016 STIP Project Recommendations — Riverside County Share 4) CTC 2016 STIP Commission Staff Recommendations Report — Posted on Commission Website Agenda Item 9 170 ATTACHMENT 1 BOB ALVARADO, Chair YVONNE B. BURKE LUCETTA DUNN JAMES EARP JAMES C. GHIELMETTI CARL GUARDING FRAN INMAN CHRISTINE KEHOE JAMES MADAFFER JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE SENATOR JIM BEALL, Ex Officio ASSEMBLY MEMBER JIM FRAZIER, Ex Officio SUSAN BRANSEN, Executive Director April 22„2016 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 (916) 654-4245 FAX (916) 653-2134 httpa/www.eatc:ca:gov Members, California State Legislature: EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor In accordance with Government Code Section 14529.3, staff recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (Commission) for adoption of the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are enclosed for your information and posted at www.catc.ca.gov. The STIP dedicates funding for California's highway, rail, transit, and other transportation - improvements 'throughout California. Because of an anticipated funding shortfall, as detailed below, the staff recommendations reflect (1) no new projects, (2) project deletions and delays proposed by regional agencies and the California Department of Transportation, and (3) additional project deletions and delays considering geographical balance and other factors to stay within the amount of funding expected to be available. The Commission will consider comments received on these recommendations and take action to adopt the 2016 STIP at its May 18-19, 2016 meeting. The primary funding source established by the Legislature for the STIP is the price -based excise tax. This tax, originally established at 17.3 cents in 2010, has been adjusted annually and will be adjusted down by the State Board of Equalization to 9.8 cents on July 1, 2016. This decrease will result in a severe reduction in funding estimated to be available for the STIP. The Commission is required by law to estimate the amount of funding expected to be available over the five-year STIP period. As a result, on January 21, 2016, the Commission adopted an amended Fund Estimate, projecting a $1.5 billion shortfall in the amount required to meet project funding commitments made in the 2014 STIP for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-.19. This marks the largest scaling back since the creation of the current STIP funding structure nearly 20 years ago. _171 Members, California State Legislature April 22, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Given the projected shortfall in transportation funding, we are recommending that the Commission add no new projects for funding in the STIP over the next five years. Instead, 98 projects totaling $754 million are recommended for full or partial deletion and 90 projects totaling $755 million are recommended for delay to fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21. While it is intended that deleted projects will be given priority by the Commission when programming the 2018 STIP, the funding crisis must first be addressed to make this a possibility. There was insufficient funding for previously committed projects that sought funding this year, and it is possible the Commission may not have sufficient funding for projects expecting funds in fiscal year 2016-17 and beyond. Typically transportation projects are funded with multiple sources. The total impact of defunding projects will likely run into the billions. Thus, this STIP action will have a very real impact beyond just meeting the transportation needs of Californians, as every $1 billion in highway and transit investments supports 13,000 jobs, not to mention higher costs associated with project delays. Recognizing the tremendous impact of not addressing the transportation funding shortfall, in January 2016, the Commission urged legislators to work together to develop compromise that will result in a significant down payment on California's transportation infrastructure need and provide for meaningful reforms to the state's transportation programs. Please be sure to contact me if there is any assistance the Commission can provide in addressing this serious issue. Sincerely, SUSAN BRANSEN Executive Director Enclosure c: Commissioners, California Transportation Commission Ex- Officio Commissioners, California Transportation Commission Brian P, Kelly, Secretary, California Transportation Agency Malcohn Dougherty, California Department of Transportation Executive Directors, Metropolitan Planning Organizations Executive Directors, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies Matt Cate, Executive Director, California State Association of Counties Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, League of California Cities 172 SUMMARY OF 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNTY ($1,000's) ATTACHMENT 2 County Program Totals Proposed by Year Total Prior 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Alameda (8,789) 0 (5,063) 0 (15,726) 0 12,000 Alpine (1,400) 0 (276) (1,745) 261 360 0 Amador (911) 0 (23) (3,975) (23) 3,110 0 Butte (1,500) (1,900) (499) (10,301) 0 11,200 0 Calaveras (1,500) (1,390) (1,327) (1,476) (17) 1,361 1,349 Colusa 0 0 (700) 700 0 0 0 Contra Costa (53,700) (1,007) (44,793) (24,757) (9,900) 24,757 2,000 Del Norte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado CTC (70) 0 (5,584) 5,500 (56) 70 0 Fresno (10,486) 227 (49,400) 0 34,665 462 3,560 Glenn (1,392) (624) (126) (1,413) (266) 1,032 5 Humboldt (800) (740) (610) 550 (15,300) 3,000 12,300 Imperial (60) 2,178 0 (33,650) 0 31,412 0 Inyo (19,240) (1,934) (7,392) 0 (33,400) 23,486 0 Kern (22,604) (1,319) (17,035) (28,901) 24,651 0 0 Kings 0 0 (1,376) 0 0 1,376 0 Lake (194) (164) (5,225) (6,836) 11,902 0 129 Lassen (2,340) (120) (9,821) 5,920 (1,209) 0 2,890 Los Angeles (55,600) 0 (55,600) (28,300) (36,520) 37,020 27,800 Madera (1,500) 0 (3,044) 0 (1) 1,545 0 Marin (571) 0 (826) 255 0 0 0 Mariposa (1,090) (821) 283 (325) (1,157) 25 905 Mendocino (2,656) (565) (5,448) 1,226 (2,503) 3,155 1,479 Merced (3,083) (3,083) 0 0 0 0 0 Modoc (1,712) 0 (1,914) 1,434 (2,339) 797 310 Mono (9,391) (2,621) (6,638) (422) (8,554) 7,654 1,190 Monterey (16,287) (4,500) (9,874) (23,424) 1,526 19,985 0 Napa (3,373) 0 (1,596) (1,427) (1,904) 400 1,154 Nevada 0 0 0 (3,000) 0 3,000 0 Orange (39,083) 0 (40,415) 0 (85,598) 9,000 77,930 Placer TPA (3,000) (3,000) (55) (55) (55) 165 0 Plumas (4,162) 0 (340) (356) (4,212) 390 356 Riverside (35,174) (550) (31,015) (20,955) 0 17,346 0 Sacramento (31,731) 0 (17,900) (2,007) (25,144) 2,312 11,008 San Benito 0 0 (9,639) 0 0 9,639 0 San Bernardino (63,771) (2,637) (22,611) (39,745) (38,523) 0 39,745 San Diego (41,000) 0 (36,000) (49,000) 0 0 44,000 San Francisco (3,458) 0 (3,458) 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin (12,914) (3,194) 2,194 (3,061) (21,153) 12,300 0 San Luis Obispo (1,100) 0 (7,881) 157 0 0 6,624 San Mateo (29,208) 0 (16,709) (10,314) (7,813) 2,411 3,217 Santa Barbara (1,962) 0 (11,372) 138 (2,037) 11,309 0 Santa Clara (7,982) 0 (8,390) 637 (3,504) 3,275 0 Santa Cruz (6,640) (1,470) (9,681) (3,733) 2,255 5,989 0 Shasta (275) 0 (12,797) 0 0 12,522 0 Sierra 0 0 (850) (50) 900 0 0 Siskiyou (3,523) (150) (1,292) (4,032) (3,195) 3,002 2,144 Solano (7,009) 0 (945) 0 (6,064) 0 0 Sonoma (1,177) 0 (1,177) 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus (4,100) (18,914) (4,336) 236 18,914 0 0 Sutter 0 0 0 (3,970) 0 3,970 0 Tahoe RPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tehama (6,393) (4,752) (430) 1,836 (6,665) 2,318 1,300 Trinity (1,581) 0 (40) (880) (811) 90 60 Tulare (6,557) 0 (1,557) (9,688) 1,688 0 3,000 Tuolumne (1,955) 0 (192) (9,463) 7,700 0 0 Ventura (17,000) 0 (137) (17,137) (138) 412 0 Yolo (3,134) (500) 0 (3,547) (3,677) 4,590 0 Yuba (500) 0 (500) (10,633) 0 10,633 0 Statewide Regional (554,638) (53,550) (471,432) (339,989) (233,002) 286,880 256,455 Interregional (199,410) (71,852) (229,124) 14,947 (125,138) 73,037 138,720 TOTAL (754,048) (125,402) (700,556) (325,042) (358,140) 359,917 395,175 Cumulative Programmed (125,402) (825,958) (1,151,000) (1,509,140) (1,149,223) (754,048) Cumulative Capacity (176,000) (734,000) (1,151,000) (1,509,000) (1,149,000) (754,000) Cumulative Under (Over) Fund Est 91,958 0 140 223 48 California Transportation Commission P1ag 1 of 4 4/22/16 2016 STIP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - COUNTY SHARE ATTACHMENT 3 Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Riverside Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Riverside Co. loc 53A Rt 10, Jefferson St WC, widen OC (construction) Aug-14 33,310 33,310 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,310 0 0 0 0 RCTC 9803 Planning, programming, and monitoring May-15 664 664 0 0 0 0 0 0 664 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) 41,545 0 0 41,545 0 0 0 0 24,245 0 0 0 17,300 Caltrans 60 46J Truck Climb/Descend Ln w/shoulders(SHOPP)(14S-27) 31,555 0 31,555 0 0 0 0 0 25,755 0 0 0 5,800 RCTC loc 46J Rt 60, Truck Lanes w/shoulders (SHOPP) (14S-27) (ext 6-15) Mar-16 550 550 0 0 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 91 71E B Canyon Wildlife Crossing Corridor (14S-04) 1,480 1,480 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 500 800 100 0 RCTC loc 108T Rt 215 Southbound Connector (SHOPP) 8,975 0 10 8,965 0 0 0 10 8,965 0 0 0 0 RCTC 9803 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,663 664 663 668 668 0 0 0 2,663 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 120,742 36,668 32,228 51,178 668 0 0 640 95,602 500 800 100 23100 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: CVAG loc 1019 CV Link, Palm Springs -Coachella, multiuse path (Ph1) 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 122,742 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) -41,545 0 0 -41,545 0 0 0 0 -24,245 0 0 0 -17,300 Caltrans 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) 15,346 0 0 0 0 15,346 0 0 9,346 0 0 0 6,000 RCTC loc 46J Rt 60, Truck Lanes w/shoulders (SHOPP) (14S-27) (ext 6-15) Mar-16 -550 -550 0 0 0 0 0 -550 0 0 0 0 0 RCTC loc 46J Rt 60, Truck Lanes w/shoulders R/W (SHOPP) SOF 550 0 550 0 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 60 46J Truck Climb/Descend Ln w/shoulders(SHOPP)(14S-27) -31,555 0-31,555 0 0 0 0 0-25,755 0 0 0 -5,800 Caltrans 60 46J Truck Climb/Descend Ln w/shoulders Con (SHOPP) 31,555 0 0 31,555 0 0 0 0 25,755 0 0 0 5,800 RCTC loc 108T Rt 215 Southbound Connector (SHOPP) DELETE -8,975 0 -10 -8,965 0 0 0 -10 -8,965 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -35,174 -550 -31,015 -18,955 0 15,346 0 -10 -23,864 0 0 0 -11,300 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: CVAG loc 1019 CV Link, Palm Springs -Coachella, multiuse path (Ph1) -2,000 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 CVAG loc 1019 CV Link, Palm Springs -Coachella, multiuse path (Ph1) 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 0 0 -2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -35,174 Caltrans Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) 2,920 0 0 0 0 2,920 0 0 2,920 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 9, 2016 PPNO 21K - Increase from original proposal not recommended California Transportation Commission Riverside Page 47 of 85 4/22/2016 174 ATTACHMENT 4 y4tor CAL/RN California 8 Transportation 4,4 Commission "k44'sPofrosw 2016 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Commission Staff Recommendations April 22, 2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS California Transportation Commission April 22, 2016 This document presents the recommendations of the staff of the California Transportation Commission (Commission) for the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Government Code Section 14529.3 requires that the Executive Director of the Commission make these recommendations available to the Commission, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, and the County Transportation Commissions at least 20 days prior to the Commission's adoption of the STIP. The Commission will receive comments on these recommendations and adopt the STIP at its May 18-19, 2016 meeting. The STIP is a key planning document for funding future state highway, intercity rail and transit improvements throughout California. State law requires the Commission to update the STIP biennially, in even -numbered years, with each new STIP adding two new years to prior programming commitments. The 2016 STIP covers the five-year period from fiscal year 2016-17 through fiscal year 2020-21. Prior to adopting the STIP, the Commission is required by law (Government Code Section 14525), to estimate the amount of funding expected to be available for the five year STIP period. The 2016 STIP Fund Estimate, adopted by the Commission in August 2015, estimated no new programming capacity based on an assumed price -based excise tax rate for fiscal year 2016-17 of 14.1 cents per gallon, increasing to 18 cents prior to the end of the fund estimate period. In response to declining gasoline prices, Caltrans presented amended revenue assumptions at the Commission's January 2016 meeting. These assumptions projected that the price -based excise tax would drop further than originally anticipated on July 1, 2016. At that time, based on the revised assumptions, the Commission adopted an amended 2016 STIP Fund Estimate reflecting a price -based excise tax assumption of 10 cents effective July 1, 2016, increasing to 18 cents by the last year of the fund estimate. Based on the amended 2016 Fund Estimate, the STIP is over programmed in the first three years of the STIP period (fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19) by $1.5 billion, and there is no capacity to add new projects. This over programming affects both the Public Transportation Account (PTA) and the State Highway Account (SHA). As a result, project funding carried forward from the 2014 STIP for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 totaling $754 million must be deleted and an additional $755 million must be delayed to the last two years of the 2016 STIP period (fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21). Staff recommendations are based on the combined programming capacity for the PTA and SHA as identified in the amended Fund Estimate adopted by the Commission on January 21, 2016 (state law only allows amendments to the Fund Estimate prior to March 1). If available funding is less than assumed, the Commission may be forced to delay or restrict allocations using interim allocation plans. On the other hand, if available funding proves Page 1 to be greater than assumed, it may be possible to allocate funding to projects earlier than the year programmed. Staff recommendations reflect (1) no new projects, (2) project deletions and delays proposed by regional agencies and Caltrans, and (3) additional project deletions and delays. Although STIP regional shares are split 60/40 (South/North), geographic programming equity of approximately 56.4 percent in the South and 43.6 percent in the North is recommended. This funding ratio is proportionate to programming in the three early years of the 2016 STIP period (fiscal years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19) carried forward from the 2014 STIP. The adopted 2016 STIP Guidelines included a one-time allowance for agencies to delay current year (fiscal year 2015-16) projects into the 2016 STIP period. This allowance was determined to be necessary since not all projects programmed in fiscal year 2015-16 could receive allocations due to insufficient funds. To fully allocate fiscal year 2015-16 projects, including projects with extensions in the STIP period, staff recommendations include the delay of projects programmed in fiscal year 2016-17 of at least one year. Since PTA funding is more limited than SHA funding, staff recommendations for all projects are based on the combined, total fund capacity identified in the amended Fund Estimate for highway, local road, rail, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. Through fiscal year 2020-21, the recommended programming is about equal to the identified capacity. The Commission's adopted STIP may include only projects nominated by a regional agency in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) or by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). Accordingly, the staff recommendations for the 2016 STIP include the following: • Highways and Local Roads. Staff recommendations include (1) no new projects, (2) project deletions and delays proposed by regional agencies and Caltrans, (3) additional project deletions and delays, and (4) no project cost increases later than fiscal year 2017-18, and (5) no Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) increases. • Rail and Transit. Staff recommendations include (1) no new projects, (2) project deletions and delays proposed by regional agencies and Caltrans, (3) additional project deletions and delays, and (4) no project cost increases later than fiscal year 2017-18. • Bicycle and Pedestrian. Staff recommendations include (1) no new projects, (2) project deletions and delays proposed by regional agencies and Caltrans, (3) additional project delays, and (4) no project cost increases later than fiscal year 2017-18. 2 The staff recommendations by project for each county and interregional share are listed on the pages that follow. The recommendations are based primarily on: • Adopted amended 2016 Fund Estimate identifying the need to delete and delay projects currently programmed in the first three years of the STIP period (fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19); and • Commission policies as expressed in the STIP Guidelines, 2016 STIP programming proposals, geographic equity, and priorities identified for fiscal year 2015-16 allocations. 3 FUND ESTIMATE AND GUIDELINES FOR THE 2016 STIP The development of the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) began with the California Transportation Commission's (Commission) adoption of the initial 2016 STIP Fund Estimate, together with the adoption of amendments to the STIP Guidelines, on August 27, 2015, and adoption of an amended Fund Estimate (including a change to the assumption regarding the future price -based excise tax rate and a resultant decrease in projected STIP revenues) on January 21, 2016. STIP proposals were made through the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), which were due to the Commission by December 15, 2015. Subsequent to the adoption of the amended Fund Estimate, revised RTIPs and the ITIP were due by February 29, 2016. The Commission subsequently held two public hearings on the revised proposals, one on March 17, 2016 in Irvine and the other on March 24, 2016 in Sacramento. 2016 Amended STIP Fund Estimate The 2016 Amended STIP Fund Estimate covered the five-year period of the 2016 STIP, fiscal years 2016-17 through 2020-21, and estimated total statewide new programming capacity of negative $754 million. As a result, there is insufficient funding to program new highway, rail and transit, and bicycle and pedestrian projects and existing programmed projects must be deleted or delayed. The programming of the 2016 STIP includes a base of $554 million programmed in fiscal year 2015-16 (base year included because of a $176 million shortfall that carries into the 2016 STIP period) and $2.153 billion in fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 to projects carried forward from the 2014 STIP. Funding capacity is insufficient to cover the existing programmed amount, resulting in the need to delete $754 million in programming, for a new 2016 STIP program total of $1.953 billion. SUMMARY OF 2014 STIP CAPACITY ($ in millions) Carryover Capacity New Capacity Total Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) (eliminated) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Public Transportation Account (PTA) 417 -167 250 State Highway Account (SHA) 2,290 -587 1,703 Total (may not match FE due to rounding) $2,707 $ -754 $1,953 4 The following table is a breakdown of the $1.953 billion total STIP capacity by fiscal year: SUMMARY OF 2016 STIP CAPACITY BY YEAR ($ in millions) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Total (base) Transportation Enhancement (TE) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Transit (PTA) 50 40 40 40 40 40 250 Roads (SHA) 328 200 225 275 320 355 1,703 Total $ 378 $ 240 $ 265 $ 315 $ 360 $ 395 $1,953 Programming capacity was determined in the amended Fund Estimate by estimating available revenues and deducting current commitments against those revenues. Programming capacity does not represent cash. It represents the level of programming commitments that the Commission may make to projects for each year within the STIP period. For example, cash will be required in one year to meet commitments made in a prior year, and a commitment made this year may require the cash over a period of years. The Fund Estimate methodology uses a "cash flow allocation basis," which schedules funding capacity based upon cash flow requirements and reflects the method used to manage the allocation of funding for capital projects. 5 STIP Guidelines Policies and Procedures Specific to the 2016 STIP The following specific policies and procedures address the particular circumstances of the 2016 STIP: • Schedule. The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2016 STIP (as amended at the January 20-21, 2016 Commission meeting): Caltrans presents draft Fund Estimate STIP Guidelines & Fund Estimate Workshop CTC adopts Fund Estimate & Guidelines Caltrans identifies State highway needs Caltrans submits draft ITIP CTC ITIP hearing, North CTC ITIP hearing, South Regions submit RTIPs Caltrans submits final ITIP CTC STIP hearing, North CTC STIP hearing, South CTC publishes staff recommendations CTC adopts STIP CTC adopts amended Fund Estimate Regions submit revised RTIPs Caltrans submits revised ITIP CTC STIP Hearing, South CTC STIP Hearing, North CTC publishes staff recommendations CTC adopts STIP June 25, 2015 July 23, 2015 August 27, 2015 September 15, 2015 October 15, 2015 October 28, 2015 November 4, 2015 December 15, 2015 December 15, 2015 January 21, 2016 January 26, 2016 February 19, 2016 March 16 17, 2016 January 21, 2016 February 26, 2016 February 26, 2016 March 17, 2016 March 24, 2016 April 22, 2016 May 18-19, 2016 • Statewide Fund Estimate. The statewide capacity for the 2016 STIP Fund Estimate identifies net new capacity only in the two years added to the STIP, 2019-20 and 2020-21, with decreases in capacity in earlier years. The decreases in capacity are due mainly to the decrease in the price based excise tax. The estimate incorporates the 2015- 16 Budget Act and other 2015 legislation enacted prior to the Fund Estimate adoption. Programming in the 2016 STIP will be constrained by fiscal year, with most new programming in the two years added to the STIP, 2019-20 and 2020-21. • County shares and targets. The 2016 Fund Estimate indicates that the STIP is already fully programmed for the entire 5 years of the 2016 STIP (there is about $46 million of capacity available in the last year of the STIP period). This is due primarily to the decrease in the price based excise tax. Projects currently programmed in the STIP will need to be reprogrammed into later years. • Reprogramming of current year projects. In a departure from the general rule in the STIP Guidelines, projects programmed in 2015-16, including projects from prior years 6 that have allocation extensions, may be reprogrammed to a later fiscal year if they are on the list of delivered projects or if they have been granted, prior to adoption of the Fund Estimate, an extension of the allocation period that expires after the adoption of the 2016 STIP. In addition, projects programmed in 2015-16 may be proposed for delay in the RTIP or ITIP submitted by December 15, 2015. • Submittal of RTIPS. The Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) Group has voluntarily developed a template for submittal of RTIPS, and encourages its use by regions for the 2016 STIP. The purpose of the template is to make RTIP submittals more consistent statewide and to present a visualization tool that provides information in an organized and transparent manner. The RTIP template includes, but is not limited to, the following: contact information, a summary of previously completed RTIP projects, information on how regions are delivering projects and meeting state and federal goals, a public participation summary, a description of the relationship between the RTIP and the adopted RTP/SCS, and a description of the performance and effectiveness of the RTIP. • Transit and Rail Projects. A region may nominate transit and rail projects in its RTIP within State Highway Account (SHA) and Federal funding constraints (rolling stock may only be funded with Federal funds). As indicated in the fund estimate, a small amount of PTA funds is available to fund transit and rail projects. A region nominating a project that requires PTA funding because it does not meet SHA or Federal requirements must clearly explain this requirement in its RTIP. • Bicycle and Pedestrian projects. Existing bicycle and pedestrian projects may remain in the STIP so long as they are eligible for State Highway Account or Federal funds. • Limitations on planning, programming, and monitoring (PPM). The fund estimate includes a table of PPM limitations that identifies the 5% limit for county shares for 2016-17 through 2020-21, based upon the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Fund Estimates. These are the amounts against which the 5% is applied. The PPM limitation is a limit to the amount that can be programmed in any region and is not in addition to amounts already programmed. • Advance Project Development Element (APDE). There is no APDE identified for the 2016 STIP. • GARVEE bonding and AB 3090 commitments. The Commission will not consider proposals for either GARVEE bonding or new AB 3090 commitments as part of the 2016 STIP. The Commission will consider AB 3090 or GARVEE bonding proposals as amendments to the STIP after the initial adoption. Commission staff will maintain an "AB 3090 Plan" which will include projects for which regions intend to request an AB 3090 reimbursement in order to advance the project into 2016-17, 2017-18, or 2018-19. The inclusion of a project on the list is not a commitment by the regional agency to request an AB 3090 reimbursement, an endorsement or recommendation by Commission staff, or an approval by the Commission. 7 " C a l t r a n s B e n e f i t / C o s t M o d e l . T h e 2 0 1 6 S T I P G u i d e l i n e s c o n t i n u e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r p r o j e c t - l e v e l e v a l u a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g u s e o f C a l t r a n s ' B e n e f i t / C o s t M o d e l . C a l t r a n s h a s d e v e l o p e d a m o d e l f o r b i c y c l e a n d p e d e s t r i a n p r o j e c t s i n o r d e r t o i m p r o v e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o d e c i s i o n m a k e r s a t t h e r e g i o n a l a n d s t a t e l e v e l . " C o m m i s s i o n e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d p r i o r i t i e s . T h e 2 0 1 6 F u n d E s t i m a t e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e 2 0 1 4 S T I P i s o v e r - p r o g r a m m e d i n t h e e a r l y y e a r s . S o m e o f t h i s o v e r - p r o g r a m m i n g w i l l l i k e l y b e r e s o l v e d t h r o u g h t h e s c h e d u l e u p d a t e s w h i c h o c c u r e a c h S T I P c y c l e . H o w e v e r , s o m e p r o j e c t s c u r r e n t l y p r o g r a m m e d i n t h e S T I P m a y n e e d t o b e d e l a y e d ( r e p r o g r a m m e d i n t o a l a t e r y e a r ) . F o r t h e 2 0 1 6 S T I P , t h e C o m m i s s i o n e x p e c t s t o g i v e f i r s t p r i o r i t y t o t h e r e p r o g r a m m i n g o f p r o j e c t s f r o m t h e 2 0 1 4 S T I P , a s a m e n d e d . T h e s e l e c t i o n o f p r o j e c t s f o r a d d i t i o n a l p r o g r a m m i n g w i l l b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d s a n d c r i t e r i a i n s e c t i o n 6 1 o f t h e S T I P g u i d e l i n e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e C o m m i s s i o n i n t e n d s t o f o c u s o n R T I P p r o p o s a l s t h a t m e e t S t a t e h i g h w a y i m p r o v e m e n t a n d i n t e r c i t y r a i l n e e d s a s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 2 0 o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s . T h e D e p a r t m e n t s h o u l d p r o v i d e a l i s t o f t h e i d e n t i f i e d s t a t e h i g h w a y a n d i n t e r c i t y r a i l n e e d s t o r e g i o n a l a g e n c i e s a n d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n b y S e p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 . S h o u l d t h e D e p a r t m e n t f a i l t o p r o v i d e a r e g i o n a n d t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e C o m m i s s i o n i n t e n d s t o a s s u m e t h e r e a r e n o u n m e t s t a t e h i g h w a y o r i n t e r c i t y r a i l n e e d s i n t h a t r e g i o n . C a l i f o r n i a h a s b e e n i n a h i s t o r i c d r o u g h t a n d G o v e r n o r B r o w n p r o c l a i m e d a s t a t e o f e m e r g e n c y o n J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e G o v e r n o r i s s u e d s t a t e w i d e m a n d a t o r y w a t e r r e d u c t i o n s o n A p r i l 1 , 2 0 1 5 . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t a n y l a n d s c a p e p r o j e c t s c u r r e n t l y p r o g r a m m e d b u t n o t y e t a l l o c a t e d a n d a w a r d e d , o r a n y n e w l a n d s c a p e p r o j e c t s , w i l l i n c l u d e d r o u g h t t o l e r a n t p l a n t s a n d i r r i g a t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e G o v e r n o r ' s a c t i o n s . G o v e r n o r B r o w n i s s u e d E x e c u t i v e O r d e r B - 3 0 - 1 5 o n A p r i l 2 9 , 2 0 1 5 , r e l a t e d t o c l i m a t e c h a n g e a n d o r d e r i n g t h a t a n e w i n t e r i m s t a t e w i d e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n t a r g e t t o r e d u c e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s t o 4 0 p e r c e n t b e l o w 1 9 9 0 l e v e l s b y 2 0 3 0 i s e s t a b l i s h e d . T h e o r d e r s t a t e s t h a t S t a t e a g e n c i e s s h a l l t a k e c l i m a t e c h a n g e i n t o a c c o u n t i n t h e i r p l a n n i n g a n d i n v e s t m e n t d e c i s i o n s , a n d e m p l o y f u l l l i f e - c y c l e c o s t a c c o u n t i n g t o e v a l u a t e a n d c o m p a r e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n v e s t m e n t s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e s . I n a d d i t i o n , S t a t e a g e n c i e s ' p l a n n i n g a n d i n v e s t m e n t s h a l l b e g u i d e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : o P r i o r i t y s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o a c t i o n s t h a t b o t h b u i l d c l i m a t e p r e p a r e d n e s s a n d r e d u c e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s ; o W h e r e p o s s i b l e , f l e x i b l e a n d a d a p t i v e a p p r o a c h e s s h o u l d b e t a k e n t o p r e p a r e f o r u n c e r t a i n c l i m a t e i m p a c t s ; o A c t i o n s s h o u l d p r o t e c t t h e s t a t e ' s m o s t v u l n e r a b l e p o p u l a t i o n s ; a n d o N a t u r a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s o l u t i o n s s h o u l d b e p r i o r i t i z e d . E x e c u t i v e O r d e r B - 3 0 - 1 5 m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t a n d R e g i o n a l A g e n c i e s w h e n p r o p o s i n g n e w p r o g r a m m i n g f o r t h e 2 0 1 6 S T I P . T h e C o m m i s s i o n i n t e n d s t o c o n s i d e r E x e c u t i v e O r d e r B - 3 0 - 1 5 w h e n a p p r o v i n g p r o g r a m m i n g 8 recommendations in the event that programming requests exceed programming capacity. Note: Subsequent to adoption of the 2016 STIP Guidelines and Fund Estimate, the Commission adopted an amended 2016 Fund Estimate at the January 20-21, 2016 Commission meeting. Due to the estimated decrease in the price -based excise tax, the 2016 amended STIP Fund Estimate identified over programming of $1.5 billion in the first three years of the 2016 STIP period and a negative programming capacity of $754 million. 9 STIP PROPOSALS The Commission may include in the STIP only projects that have been nominated by a regional agency in its RTIP or by Caltrans in its ITIP. For the 2016 STIP, amended RTIPs and the ITIP were due to the Commission by February 26, 2016. Regions and Caltrans were asked to identify projects that could be deleted and delayed to meet the (1) $754 million deletion target and (2) the $755 million delay target to the last two years of the STIP. The revised RTIPs and ITIP together proposed $515 million in deletions, short of the $754 million target by $239 million. Also, insufficient project delays to the last two years of the STIP period were proposed. Therefore, staff recommendations include delays to and deletions of funding for many existing programmed projects, beyond those proposed by the regions or Caltrans. In addition, requests for new projects and increased programming are not recommended for inclusion in the 2016 STIP. The spreadsheets showing project programming recommendations reflect revisions since the preparation of the Commission Briefing Book for the STIP hearings, including updated information provided by regions and Caltrans. 10 RECOMMENDED STIP ACTIONS Staff recommends the adoption of the 2016 STIP to include the specific projects and schedules shown in the spreadsheets at the end of this document and as further described in the following narrative. These recommendations identify specific project components and costs for each year of the 2016 STIP, with separate groupings for highway, rail and transit, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The table on page 1 identifies the total amounts recommended from each county and the interregional share for highway, rail and transit, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The table sums the amounts recommended for each county and the interregional program by fiscal year and compares the amounts recommended to the total targets for each county and interregional share. It also compares the statewide total recommended by fiscal year to the statewide capacity by fiscal year. The tables on pages 2, 3 and 4 sum the recommendations for highway and local road projects, rail and transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The project recommendations are based primarily on the 2016 amended STIP Fund Estimate adopted by the Commission on January 21, 2016 identifying a $754 million shortfall in programming capacity over the next five years. Funding for projects currently programmed in the first three years of the 2016 STIP period (fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19) totaling $754 million must be deleted and another $755 million must be delayed to fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Project funding was deleted and delayed to meet the targets identified based on the following methodology: • Project deletions, delays and priorities recommended by regional agencies in their RTIPs and by Caltrans in its ITIP; • Addition of no new projects; • Retention of existing programming for Planning, Programming and Monitoring; • Geographic equity; • Commission policies and priorities. Project Recommendations The staff recommendations identify programming for specific projects and project components including project deletions and delays to reduce program levels in fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 to the capacity identified in the amended Fund Estimate. The staff recommendations provide priority to reprogramming projects from the 2014 STIP, as amended, and retention of programming for PPM within the statutory limits. The recommended schedule reflects the limits of Fund Estimate program capacity. 11 UNCERTAINTIES FOR FUTURE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS The 2016 STIP staff recommendations are consistent with the adopted amended 2016 Fund Estimate, as required by statute. Funding conditions may, and usually do, continue to change from the assumptions made in the Fund Estimate. The Commission and Caltrans will continue to monitor those conditions to determine ability to allocate funding to STIP projects. If available funding is less than was assumed in the Fund Estimate, the Commission may be forced to delay or restrict allocations through the use of allocation plans. On the other hand, if available funding proves to be greater than was assumed in the Fund Estimate, it may be possible to allocate funding to some projects sooner than the year programmed. 12 APPENDIX TO 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY TABLES The tables on the following pages are included with these recommendations for information and reference. Four statewide summary tables and separate project listings for each of the 59 county shares and the interregional share are provided. The four statewide summary tables are: • Staff Recommendation, All Projects. Includes, for each county share and the interregional program, the net new programming recommended by fiscal year. At the bottom of the table is a comparison of the statewide total recommended to the year - by -year capacity for new programming • Staff Recommendation, Highway and Local Road Projects. Includes, for each county share and the interregional program, the net new programming recommended for highway and local road projects by fiscal year. • Staff Recommendation, Rail and Transit Projects. Includes, for each county share and the interregional program, the net new programming recommended for rail and transit projects by fiscal year. • Staff Recommendation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects. Includes, for each county share and the interregional share, the net new bicycle and pedestrian programming recommended by fiscal year. COUNTY AND INTERREGIONAL TABLES The separate tables for each of the county shares and the interregional share include: • STIP Projects at initial Fund Estimate (August 2015). These are the projects and amounts programmed in the STIP when the Fund Estimate was adopted. These projects constitute the base against which Fund Estimate estimated capacity and the base against which programming was proposed and is recommended. • Recommended 2016 STIP Programming. This section includes all recommended changes to existing programming, by component and fiscal year. In most cases, changes to an existing project are displayed by listing the existing programming as a deduction (negative), followed by the programming as now proposed (positive). This section first lists highway and local road projects and their subtotal, then the rail and transit (PTA -eligible) projects and their subtotal, then the bicycle and pedestrian projects and their subtotal, followed by the Total Programming Recommended. Where the recommendation is for a different fiscal year from the year proposed in the RTIP or ITIP, the color or shading in a cell indicates the fiscal year for which the project was originally proposed. 13 " N o t e s / P r o j e c t s N o t I n c l u d e d i n S t a f f R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . T h e b o x a t t h e b o t t o m o f e a c h t a b l e i d e n t i f i e s p r o j e c t s p r o p o s e d b y t h e r e g i o n a l a g e n c y o r C a l t r a n s t h a t a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t a f f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t o g e t h e r w i t h v a r i o u s n o t e s a n d c o m m e n t s o n t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t s a n d t h e s t a f f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . " B a l a n c e o f S T I P C o u n t y S h a r e . T h e b o x a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e p a g e i d e n t i f i e s t h e s h a r e b a l a n c e a n d t h e t o t a l r e c o m m e n d e d n e w p r o g r a m m i n g . 1 4 SUMMARY OF 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNTY ($1,000's) County Program Totals Proposed by Year Total Prior 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Alameda (8,789) 0 (5,063) 0 (15,726) 0 12,000 Alpine (1,400) 0 (276) (1,745) 261 360 0 Amador (911) 0 (23) (3,975) (23) 3,110 0 Butte (1,500) (1,900) (499) (10,301) 0 11,200 0 Calaveras (1,500) (1,390) (1,327) (1,476) (17) 1,361 1,349 Colusa 0 0 (700) 700 0 0 0 Contra Costa (53,700) (1,007) (44,793) (24,757) (9,900) 24,757 2,000 Del Norte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado CTC (70) 0 (5,584) 5,500 (56) 70 0 Fresno (10,486) 227 (49,400) 0 34,665 462 3,560 Glenn (1,392) (624) (126) (1,413) (266) 1,032 5 Humboldt (800) (740) (610) 550 (15,300) 3,000 12,300 Imperial (60) 2,178 0 (33,650) 0 31,412 0 Inyo (19,240) (1,934) (7,392) 0 (33,400) 23,486 0 Kern (22,604) (1,319) (17,035) (28,901) 24,651 0 0 Kings 0 0 (1,376) 0 0 1,376 0 Lake (194) (164) (5,225) (6,836) 11,902 0 129 Lassen (2,340) (120) (9,821) 5,920 (1,209) 0 2,890 Los Angeles (55,600) 0 (55,600) (28,300) (36,520) 37,020 27,800 Madera (1,500) 0 (3,044) 0 (1) 1,545 0 Marin (571) 0 (826) 255 0 0 0 Mariposa (1,090) (821) 283 (325) (1,157) 25 905 Mendocino (2,656) (565) (5,448) 1,226 (2,503) 3,155 1,479 Merced (3,083) (3,083) 0 0 0 0 0 Modoc (1,712) 0 (1,914) 1,434 (2,339) 797 310 Mono (9,391) (2,621) (6,638) (422) (8,554) 7,654 1,190 Monterey (16,287) (4,500) (9,874) (23,424) 1,526 19,985 0 Napa (3,373) 0 (1,596) (1,427) (1,904) 400 1,154 Nevada 0 0 0 (3,000) 0 3,000 0 Orange (39,083) 0 (40,415) 0 (85,598) 9,000 77,930 Placer TPA (3,000) (3,000) (55) (55) (55) 165 0 Plumas (4,162) 0 (340) (356) (4,212) 390 356 Riverside (35,174) (550) (31,015) (20,955) 0 17,346 0 Sacramento (31,731) 0 (17,900) (2,007) (25,144) 2,312 11,008 San Benito 0 0 (9,639) 0 0 9,639 0 San Bernardino (63,771) (2,637) (22,611) (39,745) (38,523) 0 39,745 San Diego (41,000) 0 (36,000) (49,000) 0 0 44,000 San Francisco (3,458) 0 (3,458) 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin (12,914) (3,194) 2,194 (3,061) (21,153) 12,300 0 San Luis Obispo (1,100) 0 (7,881) 157 0 0 6,624 San Mateo (29,208) 0 (16,709) (10,314) (7,813) 2,411 3,217 Santa Barbara (1,962) 0 (11,372) 138 (2,037) 11,309 0 Santa Clara (7,982) 0 (8,390) 637 (3,504) 3,275 0 Santa Cruz (6,640) (1,470) (9,681) (3,733) 2,255 5,989 0 Shasta (275) 0 (12,797) 0 0 12,522 0 Sierra 0 0 (850) (50) 900 0 0 Siskiyou (3,523) (150) (1,292) (4,032) (3,195) 3,002 2,144 Solano (7,009) 0 (945) 0 (6,064) 0 0 Sonoma (1,177) 0 (1,177) 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus (4,100) (18,914) (4,336) 236 18,914 0 0 Sutter 0 0 0 (3,970) 0 3,970 0 Tahoe RPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tehama (6,393) (4,752) (430) 1,836 (6,665) 2,318 1,300 Trinity (1,581) 0 (40) (880) (811) 90 60 Tulare (6,557) 0 (1,557) (9,688) 1,688 0 3,000 Tuolumne (1,955) 0 (192) (9,463) 7,700 0 0 Ventura (17,000) 0 (137) (17,137) (138) 412 0 Yolo (3,134) (500) 0 (3,547) (3,677) 4,590 0 Yuba (500) 0 (500) (10,633) 0 10,633 0 Statewide Regional (554,638) (53,550) (471,432) (339,989) (233,002) 286,880 256,455 Interregional (199,410) (71,852) (229,124) 14,947 (125,138) 73,037 138,720 TOTAL (754,048) (125,402) (700,556) (325,042) (358,140) 359,917 395,175 Cumulative Programmed (125,402) (825,958) (1,151,000) (1,509,140) (1,149,223) (754,048) Cumulative Capacity (176,000) (734,000) (1,151,000) (1,509,000) (1,149,000) (754,000) Cumulative Under (Over) Fund Est 91,958 0 140 223 48 California Transportation Commission Page 1 of 4 4/22/16 SUMMARY OF 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HIGHWAY AND ROAD PROJECTS ($tows) Totals by Year County Total Prior 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Alameda (2,000) 0 (2,000) 0 (12,000) 0 12,000 Alpine (1,400) 0 (276) (1,745) 261 360 0 Amador (911) 0 (23) (3,975) (23) 3,110 0 Butte (1,500) (1,900) (499) (10,301) 0 11,200 0 Calaveras (1,500) (1,390) (1,327) (1,476) (17) 1,361 1,349 Colusa 0 0 (700) 700 0 0 0 Contra Costa (33,510) 0 (38,610) (24,757) 3,100 24,757 2,000 Del Norte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado CTC (70) 0 (5,584) 5,500 (56) 70 0 Fresno (10,486) 227 (49,400) 0 34,665 462 3,560 Glenn (1,392) (624) (126) (1,413) (266) 1,032 5 Humboldt (800) (190) (610) 0 (15,300) 3,000 12,300 Imperial (60) 2,178 0 (33,650) 0 31,412 0 Inyo (19,240) (1,934) (7,392) 0 (33,400) 23,486 0 Kern (22,604) (1,319) (17,035) (28,901) 24,651 0 0 Kings 0 0 (1,376) 0 0 1,376 0 Lake (194) (164) (5,225) (6,836) 11,902 0 129 Lassen (2,340) 0 (9,941) 5,920 (1,209) 0 2,890 Los Angeles (55,600) 0 (55,600) 0 0 0 0 Madera (1,500) 0 (3,044) 0 (1) 1,545 0 Marin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mariposa (1,090) (821) 283 (325) (1,157) 25 905 Mendocino (1,171) (225) (4,633) 226 196 3,155 110 Merced (3,083) (3,083) 0 0 0 0 0 Modoc (1,712) 0 (972) 492 (2,339) 797 310 Mono (9,391) (2,621) (6,638) (422) (8,554) 7,654 1,190 Monterey (16,287) (4,500) (9,874) (23,424) 1,526 19,985 0 Napa (2,997) 0 (1,120) (1,027) (2,004) 0 1,154 Nevada 0 0 0 (3,000) 0 3,000 0 Orange (39,083) 0 (40,415) 0 (85,598) 9,000 77,930 Placer TPA 0 0 (55) (55) (55) 165 0 Plumas (4,162) 0 (340) (356) (4,212) 390 356 Riverside (35,174) (550) (31,015) (18,955) 0 15,346 0 Sacramento (13,231) 0 (8,200) 2,993 (21,344) 2,312 11,008 San Benito 0 0 (9,639) 0 0 9,639 0 San Bernardino (63,771) (2,637) (22,611) (39,745) (38,523) 0 39,745 San Diego (41,000) 0 (36,000) (49,000) 0 0 44,000 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin (12,914) (3,194) 2,194 (3,061) (21,153) 12,300 0 San Luis Obispo (1,100) 0 (7,881) 157 0 0 6,624 San Mateo (27,610) 0 (15,111) (10,314) (7,813) 2,411 3,217 Santa Barbara (1,962) 0 (11,372) 138 (2,037) 11,309 0 Santa Clara 0 0 (408) 637 (3,504) 3,275 0 Santa Cruz (6,640) (850) (6,411) (1,634) 2,255 0 0 Shasta 0 0 (12,122) 0 0 12,122 0 Sierra 0 0 (750) 250 500 0 0 Siskiyou (3,523) (150) (1,292) (4,032) (3,195) 3,002 2,144 Solano (6,064) 0 0 0 (6,064) 0 0 Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus (4,100) (18,914) (4,336) 236 18,914 0 0 Sutter 0 0 0 (3,970) 0 3,970 0 Tahoe RPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tehama (5,193) (4,752) (265) 2,956 (5,715) 2,318 265 Trinity (1,250) 0 (40) (880) (480) 90 60 Tulare (6,557) 0 (1,557) (9,688) 1,688 0 3,000 Tuolumne (1,955) 0 (192) (9,463) 7,700 0 0 Ventura (17,000) 0 (137) (17,137) (138) 412 0 Yolo (2,634) 0 0 (3,547) (3,677) 4,590 0 Yuba 0 0 0 (10,633) 0 10,633 0 Statewide Regional (485,761) (47,413) (429,677) (303,517) (172,476) 241,071 226,251 Interregional (167,410) (8,352) (207,804) 16,947 (112,138) 73,037 70,900 TOTAL (653,171) (55,765) (637,481) (286,570) (284,614) 314,108 297,151 California Transportation Commission Page 2 of 4 4/22/2016 SUMMARY OF 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RAIL AND TRANSIT PROJECTS (st000.$) Totals by Year County Total Prior 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Alameda (3,726) 0 0 0 (3,726) 0 0 Alpine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amador 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Butte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calaveras 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colusa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contra Costa (18,100) 0 (5,100) 0 (13,000) 0 0 Del Norte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado CTC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fresno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glenn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inyo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lassen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles 0 0 0 (28,300) (36,520) 37,020 27,800 Madera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mariposa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mendocino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Merced 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Modoc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mono 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Napa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Placer TPA (3,000) (3,000) 0 0 0 0 0 Plumas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sacramento (18,500) 0 (9,700) (5,000) (3,800) 0 0 San Benito 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Bernardino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Mateo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Clara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shasta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sierra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Siskiyou 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sutter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tahoe RPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tehama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tulare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuolumne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yuba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Statewide Regional (43,326) (3,000) (14,800) (33,300) (57,046) 37,020 27,800 Interregional (32,000) (63,500) (21,320) (2,000) (13,000) 0 67,820 TOTAL (75,326) (66,500) (36,120) (35,300) (70,046) 37,020 95,620 California Transportation Commission Page 3 of 4 4/22/2016 SUMMARY OF 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS ($1,000's) County Program Total New Programming Proposed Prior 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Alameda (3,063) 0 (3,063) 0 0 0 0 Alpine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amador 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Butte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calaveras 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colusa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contra Costa (2,090) (1,007) (1,083) 0 0 0 0 Del Norte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado CTC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fresno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glenn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt 0 (550) 0 550 0 0 0 Imperial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inyo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lassen 0 (120) 120 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Madera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marin (571) 0 (826) 255 0 0 0 Mariposa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mendocino (1,485) (340) (815) 1,000 (2,699) 0 1,369 Merced 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Modoc 0 0 (942) 942 0 0 0 Mono 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Napa (376) 0 (476) (400) 100 400 0 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Placer TPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside 0 0 0 (2,000) 0 2,000 0 Sacramento 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Benito 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Bernardino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Francisco (3,458) 0 (3,458) 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Mateo (1,598) 0 (1,598) 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Clara (7,982) 0 (7,982) 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 (620) (3,270) (2,099) 0 5,989 0 Shasta (275) 0 (675) 0 0 400 0 Sierra 0 0 (100) (300) 400 0 0 Siskiyou 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solano (945) 0 (945) 0 0 0 0 Sonoma (1,177) 0 (1,177) 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sutter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tahoe RPA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tehama (1,200) 0 (165) (1,120) (950) 0 1,035 Trinity (331) 0 0 0 (331) 0 0 Tulare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuolumne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolo (500) (500) 0 0 0 0 0 Yuba (500) 0 (500) 0 0 0 0 Statewide Regional (25,551) (3,137) (26,955) (3,172) (3,480) 8,789 2,404 Interregional 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL (25,551) (3,137) (26,955) (3,172) (3,480) 8,789 2,404 California Transportation Commission Page 4 of 4 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Alameda Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: MTC 2100 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 122 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 84 81H Expressway Widening (Seg 2, Ruby Hill-Concannon) Mar-15 47,030 47,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,480 0 0 0 7,550 Caltrans 84 81J East-West Connector in Fremont 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 680 521K Freeway Performance Initiative, Ph 2 (ALA) 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 ACTC 2179 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,201 0 886 750 565 0 0 0 2,201 0 0 0 0 MTC 2100 Planning, programming, and monitoring 532 126 131 135 140 0 0 0 532 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 63,885 47,278 3,017 885 12,705 0 0 0 54,335 0 0 0 9,550 Rail and Transit Projects: AC Transit bus 2009Z East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Jun-15 7,995 7,995 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,995 0 0 0 0 BART rail 2010C BART Station Modemization Program (ALA) (14S-19) 3,726 0 0 0 3,726 0 0 0 3,726 0 0 0 0 BART rail 2103C Daly City BART Station Intermodal Improvements 200 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 11,921 7,995 200 0 3,726 0 0 0 11,921 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 3,063 0 3,063 0 0 0 0 0 3,063 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 3,063 0 3,063 0 0 0 0 0 3,063 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 78,869 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 680 521 K Freeway Performance Initiative, Ph 2 (ALA) DELETE -2,000 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 Caltrans 84 81J East-West Connector in Fremont -12,000 0 0 0-12,000 0 0 0-12,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 84 81J East-West Connector in Fremont 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -2,000 0 -2,000 0-12,000 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 Rail and Transit Project Proposals: BART rail 2010C BART Station Modemization Program (ALA) (14S-19) DELETE -3,726 0 0 0 -3,726 0 0 0 -3,726 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail and Transit Proposals -3,726 0 0 0 -3,726 0 0 0 -3,726 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -3,063 0 -3,063 0 0 0 0 0 -3,063 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -3,063 0 -3,063 0 0 0 0 0 -3,063 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -8,789. 0 -5,063 0 -15,726 0 12,000 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Caltrans 101 0360U Marin-Sonoma Narrows, Seg B2, Ph 2 NEW 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Alameda Page 1 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Alameda Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E Rlw sup con sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 PPNO 0360U - New project can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Alameda Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 78,869 78,869 0 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -8,789 Alameda Page 2 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Alpine Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Alpine LTC A1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 Calaveras Co. loc 3067 Rt 4 Wagon Trail Expressway - Phase 1 (in Cal Co) 1,400 0 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 Alpine County loc 6626 Hot Springs Creek bridge, replace (HBP)(14S-28) 265 0 265 0 0 0 0 0 265 0 0 0 0 Alpine County loc 3115 Hot Springs Road reconstruction (14S-28) 670 330 0 340 0 0 0 0 0 330 340 0 0 Alpine LTC A1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 91 14 30 24 23 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 2,449 367 295 1,764 23 0 0 0 1,779 330 340 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 2,449 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Calaveras Co. loc 3067 Rt 4 Wagon Trail Expressway - Phase 1 (in Cal Co) DELETE -1,400 0 0 -1,400 0 0 0 0 -1,400 0 0 0 0 Alpine County loc 6626 Hot Springs Creek bridge, replace (HBP)(14S-28) -265 0 -265 0 0 0 0 0 -265 0 0 0 0 Alpine County loc 6626 Hot Springs Creek bridge, replace (HBP)(14S-28) 265 0 0 0 265 0 0 0 265 0 0 0 0 Alpine County loc 3115 Hot Springs Road reconstruction (14S-28) -670 -330 0 -340 0 0 0 0 0 -330 -340 0 0 Alpine County loc 3115 Hot Springs Road reconstruction (14S-28) 670 330 0 0 0 340 0 0- 330 340 0 0 Alpine LTC A1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring -91 -14 -30 -24 -23 0 0 0 -91 0 0 0 0 Alpine LTC A1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 91 14 19 19 19 20 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,400 0 -276 -1,745 261 360 0 0 -1,400 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,400 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Alpine County loc 3115 Hot Springs Road reconstruction (14S-28) incr 2,150 0 0 0 0 0 2,150 0 2,150 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 16, 2016 PPNO 3115 - Construction can be programmed in a future STIP PPNO A1940 - No PPM target for share period beginning 20-21 Balance of STIP County Share, Alpine Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 3,199 2,449 750 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,400 Alpine Page 3 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Amador Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup Con sup Highway Projects: Amador CTC B1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring Aug-14 46 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 Amador CTC loc 2454 Rt 88 Pine Grove improvs, ps&e+R/W 5,561 1,610 0 3,951 0 0 0 3,951 0 0 1,610 0 0 Amador CTC B1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 208 32 59 59 58 0 0 0 208 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 5,815 1,688 59 4,010 58 0 0 3,951 254 0 1,610 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 5,815 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Amador CTC loc 2454 Rt 88 Pine Grove improvs, ps&e+R/W -5,561 -1,610 0 -3,951 0 0 0 -3,951 0 0 -1,610 0 0 Amador County loc 2454 Rt 88 Pine Grove improvs, ps&e+R/W 4,685 1,610 0 0 0 3,075 0 3,075 0 0 1,610 0 0 Amador CTC B1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring -208 -32 -59 -59 -58 0 0 0 -208 0 0 0 0 Amador CTC B1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 173 32 36 35 35 35 0 0- 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -911 0 -23 -3,975 -23 3,110 0 -876 -35 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -911 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Amador CTC B1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 35 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 PPNO B1950 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2020 ($0) Balance of STIP County Share, Amador Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 5,988 5,815 173 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -911 Amador Page 4 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Butte Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: BCAG OL16 Planning, programming, and monitoring Mar-15 148 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 70 9801 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Seg 1 (RIP) (14S-18) 13,100 1,900 0 11,200 0 0 0 900 10,000 0 1,000 0 1,200 BCAG loc 9801A Rt 70 Passing Lanes, Cox -Palermo, Seg 2 (RIP) 1,500 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 500 0 0 Butte County loc 2430 Midway Bridges across Butte Creek, replace (HBP) 1,499 0 1,499 0 0 0 0 0 1,499 0 0 0 0 BCAG OL16 Planning, programming, and monitoring 296 94 202 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 16,543 2,142 1,701 12,700 0 0 0 1,900 11,943 0 1,500 0 1,200 Rail and Transit Proiect Proposals: BCAG bus 1015 Butte Regional Transit Ops and Mtce Facility Mar-15 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,680 0 320 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,680 0 320 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Proiects: Butte County loc 3124H Neal Rd Bike Lanes, near Paradise (ext 6-13) Aug-14 Aug-14 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 Butte County loc 3124H Neal Rd Bike Lanes, near Paradise 1,440 1,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,440 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 1,490 1,490 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,440 0 50 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 20,033 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 70 9801 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Seg 1 (RIP) (14S-18) -13,100 -1,900 0 -11,200 0 0 0 -900 -10,000 0 -1,000 0 -1,200 Caltrans 70 9801 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Seg 1 (RIP) (14S-18) 13,100 0 1,000 900 0 11,200 0 550 10,000 0 1,000 350 1,200 BCAG loc 9801A Rt 70 Passing Lanes, Cox -Palermo, Seg 2 (RIP) DELETE -1,500 0 0 -1,500 0 0 0 -1,000 0 0 -500 0 0 Butte County loc 2430 Midway Bridges across Butte Creek, replace (HBP) -1,499 0 -1,499 0 0 0 0 0 -1,499 0 0 0 0 Butte County loc 2430 Midway Bridges across Butte Creek, replace (HBP) 1,499 0 0 1,499 0 0 0 0 1,499 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,500 -1,900 -499 -10,301 0 11,200 0 -1,350 0 0 -500 350 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,500 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 24, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Butte Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 22,263 20,033 2,230 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,500 Butte Page 5 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Calaveras Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Calaveras COG C1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring Aug-14 54 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 Calaveras Co. loc 3067 Rt 4 Wagon Trail Expressway 6,625 1,390 1,310 3,925 0 0 0 1,310 3,925 0 1,390 0 0 Calaveras COG C1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 247 38 70 70 69 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 6,926 1,482 1,380 3,995 69 0 0 1,310 4,226 0 1,390 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 6,926 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Calaveras Co. loc 3067 Rt4 Wagon Trail Expressway -6,625 -1,390 -1,310 -3,925 0 0 0 -1,310 -3,925 0 -1,390 0 0 Calaveras Co. loc 3067 Rt 4 Wagon Trail Expressway (proposed SHOPP) SOF 5,125 0 0 2,466 0 1,310 1,344 1,310 1,349 0 2,466 0 0 Calaveras COG C1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring -247 -38 -70 -70 -69 0 0 0 -247 0 0 0 0 Calaveras COG C1950 Planning, programming, and monitoring 247 38 53 53 52 51 0 0 247 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,500 -1,390 -1,327 -1,476 -17 1,361 1,349 0 -2,576 0 1,076 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,500 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 24, 2016 PPNO 3067 - Adding road impact fees and requesting SOF to match federal funds Balance of STIP County Share, Calaveras Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 6,926 6,926 0 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,500 Calaveras Page 6 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Colusa Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: Williams loc 1105 Rt 20 Access, Margurite Extension, close gap Oct-14 3,500 3,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 0 0 0 0 Colusa CTC OL20 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 Colusa loc 2852 Citywide, various locations, rehab and ped safety 785 85 700 0 0 0 0 0 700 15 70 0 0 Colusa County loc 2853 Norman Rd, Willow Creek -Argo St, rehab 1,267 1,267 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,267 0 0 0 0 Colusa CTC OL20 Planning, programming, and monitoring 96 40 28 28 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 5,686 4,930 728 28 0 0 0 0 5,601 15 70 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Proiects: Colusa County loc 3123C Arbuckle Rail Depot Restoration (ext 6-14) Feb-16 266 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 266 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 5,952 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Colusa loc 2852 Citywide, various locations, rehab and ped safety -785 -85 -700 0 0 0 0 0 -700 -15 -70 0 0 Colusa loc 2852 Citywide, various locations, rehab and ped safety 785 85 0 700 0 0 0 0 700 15 70 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 -700 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: RTIP adopted December 15, 2015 (no revisions) Balance of STIP County Share, Colusa Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 5,950 5,952 0 2 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Colusa Page 7 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Contra Costa Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18.19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E R/W sup con sup Highway Projects: CCTA 20110 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 431 431 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 0 0 0 MTC 2118 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 79 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 242J Rt 80, San Pablo Dam Rd interchange ph1 (ATP) May-15 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 680 521K Freeway Performance Initiative, Ph 2 (CC) 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 1,300 CCTA loc 242K Rt 80, San Pablo Dam Rd interchange phase 2 9,200 0 0 9,200 0 0 0 9,200 0 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 2025H Rt 80/Central Ave IC Ph 2 (local rd realign.) 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 298E Rt 680/4 interchange, widen Rt 4 (ph 3) (14S-08) 36,610 0 36,610 0 0 0 0 0 36,610 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 222E Rt 680 SB HOV gap closure, N Main- Livorna Rd 15,557 0 0 15,557 0 0 0 0 15,557 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 2025J Kirker Pass Rd. NB Truck Climbing Lane 2,650 0 0 0 2,650 0 0 0 2,650 0 0 0 0 CCTA 20110 Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,740 222 609 455 454 0 0 0 1,740 0 0 0 0 MTC 2118 Planning, programming, and monitoring 346 82 85 88 91 0 0 0 346 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 85,613 15,814 39,304 25,300 5,195 0 0 11,200 73,113 0 0 0 1,300 Rail and Transit Projects: BART rail 2010B Walnut Creek BART TOD intermodal project 5,300 0 5,300 0 0 0 0 0 5,300 0 0 0 0 BART rail 2010C BART Station Modernization Program (CC) (14S-19) 13,000 0 0 0 13,000 0 0 0 13,000 0 0 0 0 Hercules rail 2025G Hercules RR Station building 5,100 0 5,100 0 0 0 0 0 5,100 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 23,400 0 10,400 0 13,000 0 0 0 23,400 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Concord loc 2025K Detroit Av Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Mar-15 850 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 0 0 0 Concord loc 2010D Concord BART Station Bike/Ped Access Improv. May-15 188 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0 Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 2,090 0 2,090 0 0 0 0 0 2,090 0 0 0 0 Concord loc 2010D Concord BART Station Bike/Ped Access Improv. 1,007 1,007 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,007 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 4,135 2,045 2,090 0 0 0 0 0 3,947 0 188 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 113,148 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: CCTA loc 242K Rt 80, San Pablo Dam Rd interchange phase 2 -9,200 0 0 -9,200 0 0 0 -9,200 0 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 242K Rt 80, San Pablo Dam Rd interchange phase 2 9,200 0 0 0 0 9,200 0 9,200 0 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 222E Rt 680 SB HOV gap closure, N Main- Livorna Rd -15,557 0 0 -15,557 0 0 0 0 -15,557 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 222E Rt 680 SB HOV gap closure, N Main- Livorna Rd 15,557 0 0 0 0 15,557 0 0 15,557 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 298E Rt 680/4 interchange, widen Rt 4 (ph 3) (14S-08) -36,610 0 -36,610 0 0 0 0 0 -36,610 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 298E Rt 680/4 interchange, widen Rt 4 (ph 3) (14S-08) 5,100 0 0 0 5,100 0 0 5,100 0 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 2025H Rt 80/Central Ave IC Ph 2 (local rd realign.) -2,000 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 CCTA loc 2025H Rt 80/Central Ave IC Ph 2 (local rd realign.) 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 680 521K Freeway Performance Initiative, Ph 2 (CC) DELETE -2,000 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 -700 0 0 0 -1,300 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -33,510 0 -38,610 -24,757 3,100 24,757 2,000 5,100 -37,310 0 0 0 -1,300 California Transportation Commission Contra Costa Page 8 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Contra Costa Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Rail and Transit Project Proposals: Hercules rail 2025G Hercules RR Station building DELETE -5,100 0 -5,100 0 0 0 0 0 -5,100 0 0 0 0 BART rail 2010C BART Station Modemization Program (CC) (14S-19) DELETE -13,000 0 0 0 -13,000 0 0 0 -13,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail and Transit Proposals -18,100 0 -5,100 0-13,000 0 0 0-18,100 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Concord loc 2010D Concord BART Station Bike/Ped Access Improv. -1,007 -1,007 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,007 0 0 0 0 Concord loc 2010D Concord BART Station Bike/Ped Access Improv. 1,007 0 1,007 0 0 0 0 0 1,007 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -2,090 0 -2,090 0 0 0 0 0 -2,090 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -2,090 -1,007 -1,083 0 0 0 0 0 -2,090 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -53,700 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Caltrans 101 360U Marin-Sonoma Narrows, Seg B2, Ph 2 NEW 29,000 0 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 6,000 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 PPNO 0360U - New project can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Contra Costa Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 102,295 113,148 0 10,853 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -53,700 Contra Costa Page 9 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Del Norte Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup con sup Highway Proiects: Del Norte LTC 1032 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Del Norte Co loc 1020R Fred Haight Dr, Rt 1-1st St (Smith River), reconst May-15 1,004 1,004 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,004 0 0 0 0 Del Norte LTC 1032 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Del Norte LTC 1032 Planning, programming, and monitoring 130 0 44 44 42 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 1,202 1,072 44 44 42 0 0 0 1,202 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 1,202 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: RTIP adopted December 17, 2015 (no revisions) Balance of STIP County Share, Del Norte Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn -8,190 1,202 0 9,392 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Del Norte Page 10 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) El Dorado CTC Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: EDCTC OL14 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 Placerville loc 1217A Rt 50 W Placerville interchanges, Ray Lawyer Dr IC, Ph2 5,542 0 5,542 0 0 0 0 0 5,542 0 0 0 0 EDCTC OL14 Planning, programming, and monitoring 350 0 112 112 126 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 5,927 35 5,654 112 126 0 0 0 5,927 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans loc 3122 Rt 49 Bridge Ped and Bike Enhancements (SHOPP) 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 6,427 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Placerville loc 1217A Rt 50 W Placerville interchanges, Ray Lawyer Dr IC, Ph2 -5,542 0 -5,542 0 0 0 0 0 -5,542 0 0 0 0 Placerville loc 1217A Rt 50 W Placerville interchanges, Ray Lawyer Dr IC, Ph2 5,542 0 0 5,542 0 0 0 0 5,542 0 0 0 0 EDCTC OL14 Planning, programming, and monitoring -350 0 -112 -112 -126 0 0 0 -350 0 0 0 0 EDCTC OL14 Planning, programming, and monitoring 280 0 70 70 70 70ir- 0 0- 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -70 0 -5,584 5,500 -56 70 0 0 -70 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -70 I Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations EDCTC OL14 Planning, programming, and monitoring 70 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 70 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 3, 2016 PPNO OL14 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2020 ($0) Balance of STotal County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 1,187 6,427 0 5,240 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -70 El Dorado CTC Page 11 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Fresno Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: COFCG 6L01 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 322 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 180 6489 West Freeway, landscaping 4,572 4,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,560 166 374 10 462 Caltrans 180 91 C New fwy, Seg 3: Smith Av-Frankwood Av 57,757 8,357 49,400 0 0 0 0 750 43,200 0 4,078 3,529 6,200 COFCG 6L01 Planning, programming, and monitoring 644 322 322 0 0 0 0 0 644 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 63,295 13,573 49,722 0 0 0 0 750 47,726 166 4,452 3,539 6,662 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 63,295 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 180 6489 West Freeway, landscaping -4,572 -4,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3,560 -166 -374 -10 -462 Caltrans 180 6489 West Freeway, landscaping 4,421 399 0 0 0 462 3,560 462 0 68 330 1 3,560 Caltrans 180 91 C New fwy, Seg 3: Smith Av-Frankwood Av -57,757 -8,357 -49,400 0 0 0 0 -750 -43,200 0 -4,078 -3,529 -6,200 Caltrans 180 91 C New fwy, Seg 3: Smith Av-Frankwood Av 47,422 12,757 0 0 34,665 0 0 750 28,065 0 6,478 5,529 6,600 COFCG 6L01 Planning, programming, and monitoring -644 -322 -322 0 0 0 0 0 -644 0 0 0 0 COFCG 6L01 Planning, programming, and monitoring 644 322 322 0 AI 0 0 0 644 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -10,486 227 -49,400 0 34,665 462 3,560 462 -18,695 -98 2,356 1,991 3,498 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -10,486 Nominated Proiects Not Included in Staff Recommendations COFCG 6L01 Planning, programming, and monitoring 644 0 0 322 322 0 0 0 644 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 25, 2016 PPNO 6L01 - PPM can be programmed in the 2018 STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Fresno Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 81,237 63,295 17,942 0 Proposed New Programming -10,486 California Transportation Commission Fresno Page 12 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Glenn Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Glenn County loc 1312 Co Rd V, Co Rd 29 south to Co Rd 39, rehab Mar-15 1,286 1,286 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,286 0 0 0 0 Glenn County loc 1314 Co Rd V, Co Rd 39 south to SR 162, rehab Mar-15 991 991 0 0 0 0 0 0 991 0 0 0 0 Willows loc 1315 Sacramento St, Sycamore St -Wood St, recons(ext 6-14) Feb-15 Mar-15 661 661 0 0 0 0 0 0 661 0 0 0 0 Willows loc 1316 So. Butte St, Willow St -Wood St, reconst(ext 6-14) Feb-15 Mar-15 276 276 0 0 0 0 0 0 276 0 0 0 0 Orland loc 3781 Papst Ave, Rt 32-Bryant St, improve/reconstruct May-15 54 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 Orland loc 3781 Papst Ave, Rt 32-Bryant St, improve/reconstruct Jun-15 592 592 0 0 0 0 0 0 592 0 0 0 0 Willows loc 1322 Sycamore Street, Lassen St-Tehama St, rehab 624 624 0 0 0 0 0 0 547 10 67 0 0 Willows loc 1323 Lassen Street, Sycamore -Wood St, reconstruct 503 0 0 503 0 0 0 0 436 0 67 0 0 Glenn County loc 1325 Co Rd 306, CR 200-CR 305, rehab 1,050 0 0 0 1,050 0 0 4 991 30 25 0 0 Orland loc 1326 Sixth Street, south City limit -north City limit, rehab 350 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 Orland loc 3785 Tehama St, UPRR-Woodward Ave, reconstruct 750 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 Orland loc 3786 Road M 1/2, Rt 32-Bryant St, reconstruct 630 0 0 630 0 0 0 0 630 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 7,767 4,484 750 1,483 1,050 0 0 4 7,510 40 213 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 7,767 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Orland loc 3785 Tehama St, UPRR-Woodward Ave, reconstruct -750 0 -750 0 0 0 0 0 -750 0 0 0 0 Orland loc 3785 Tehama St, UPRR-Woodward Ave, reconstruct 820 0 M0 70 750 0 0 0 750 10 60 0 0 Orland loc 3786 Road M 1/2, Rt 32-Bryant St, reconstruct -630 0 0 -630 0 0 0 0 -630 0 0 0 0 Orland loc 3786 Road M 1/2, Rt 32-Bryant St, reconstruct 630 0 0 0 0 630 0 0 630 0 0 0 0 Willows loc 1322 Sycamore Street, Lassen St-Tehama St, rehab -624 -624 0 0 0 0 0 0 -547 -10 -67 0 0 Willows loc 1322 Sycamore Street, Lassen St-Tehama St, rehab 624 0 624 0 0 0 0 0 624 0 0 0 0 Willows loc 1323 Lassen Street, Sycamore -Wood St, reconstruct -503 0 0 -503 0 0 0 0 -436 0 -67 0 0 Willows loc 1323 Lassen Street, Sycamore -Willow St, reconstruct 374 0 0 0 0 374 0 0 295 0 79 0 0 Glenn County loc 1325 Co Rd 306, CR 200-CR 305, rehab -1,050 0 0 0 -1,050 0 0 -4 -991 -30 -25 0 0 Glenn County loc 1325 Co Rd 306, CR 200-CR 305, rehab 67 0 0 0 8 5 5 0 34 28 0 0 Orland loc 1326 Sixth Street, south City limit -north City limit, rehab DELETE -350 0 0 -350 0 0 0 0 -350 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,392 -624 -126 -1,413 -266 1,032 5 1 -1,405 4 8 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,392 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Orland loc 3785 Tehama St, UPRR-Woodward Ave, reconstruct incr 250 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 Orland loc 3786 Road M 1/2, Rt 32-Bryant St, reconstruct incr 57 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 Glenn County loc 1325 Co Rd 306, CR 200-CR 305, rehab incr 1,125 0 0 0 1,125 0 01 0 1,125 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Glenn Page 13 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Glenn Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior Project Totals by Fiscal Year 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Project Totals by Component Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup Con Sup Notes: Revised RTIP approved February 24, 2016 PPNOs 3785, 3786 - Increases can be programmed in a future STIP PPNO 1325 - Construction can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Glenn Total County Share, June 30, 2015 9,590 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 7,767 Unprogrammed Share Balance 1,823 Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 0 Proposed New Programming -1,392 California Transportation Commission Glenn Page 14 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Humboldt Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Humboldt COG 2002P Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Oct-14 118 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 Fortuna loc 2076 Rohnerville Rd, Redwood -Jordan, widen, bike, sidewalks Mar-15 1,691 1,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,691 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Co loc 2259 Eel River Dr in Fortuna, Kenmar-Drake Hill, rehab May-15 506 506 0 0 0 0 0 0 506 0 0 0 0 Blue Lake loc 2390 Railroad Avenue Improvements (E to G Streets) Jun-15 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 72 Eureka -Arcata corridor improvement (RIP) 20,468 6,168 2,000 0 12,300 0 0 2,660 10,200 2,613 2,496 399 2,100 Caltrans 101 2389 Eureka -Arcata corridor -Mitigation (split from 72) 4,190 1,190 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 2,300 190 975 25 700 Humboldt Co loc 2258 Walnut Dr/Fem St, traffic signal system (ext 5-15) Jun-16 367 367 0 0 0 0 0 0 367 0 0 0 0 Eureka loc 2373 Highland and Koster Rehabilitation 400 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Eureka loc 2374 Hawthorne, Felt & 14th St Rehabilitation 400 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Blue Lake loc 2390 Railroad Avenue Improvements (E to G Streets) 225 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 35 0 0 Humboldt COG 2002P Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Humboldt COG 2002P Planning, programming, and monitoring 523 0 203 160 160 0 0 0 523 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 29,015 10,392 3,003 160 15,460 0 0 2,660 16,795 2,830 3,506 424 2,800 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Humboldt Co loc 2391 Humboldt Bay Trail (Eureka to Bracut Segment) Aug-14 1,450 1,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,450 0 0 0 Eureka loc 302F Eureka Waterfront and Coastal Trail-nrth(ext 6-14) Oct-14 Oct-14 140 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 Eureka loc 302D Waterfront Dr, G St-J St, bike lane, sidewalks (Ph2) May-15 320 320 0 0 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Co loc 2391 Humboldt Bay Trail (Eureka to Bracut Segment) 550 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 2,460 2,460 0 0 0 0 0 320 0 1,450 690 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 31,475 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Blue Lake loc 2390 Railroad Avenue Improvements (E to G Streets) -225 -225 0 0 0 0 0 0 -190 0 -35 0 0 Blue Lake loc 2390 Railroad Avenue Improvements (E to G Streets) 225 35 190 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 35 0 0 Eureka loc 2373 Highland and Koster Rehabilitation DELETE 400 0 -400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Eureka loc 2374 Hawthorne, Felt & 14th St Rehabilitation DELETE 400 0 -400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 72 Eureka -Arcata corridor improvement (RIP) -20,468 -6,168 -2,000 0 -12,300 0 0 -2,660 -10,200 -2,613 -2,496 -399 -2,100 Caltrans 101 72 Eureka -Arcata corridor improvement (RIP) 20,468 6,168 2,000 0 0 0 12,300 2,660 10,200 2,613 2,496 399 2,100 Caltrans 101 2389 Eureka -Arcata corridor -Mitigation (split from 72) -4,190 -1,190 0 0 -3,000 0 0 0 -2,300 -190 -975 -25 -700 Caltrans 101 2389 Eureka -Arcata corridor -Mitigation (split from 72) 4,190 1,190 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 2,300 190 975 25 700 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -800 -190 -610 0 -15,300 3,000 12,300 0 -800 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Humboldt Co loc 2391 Humboldt Bay Trail (Eureka to Bracut Segment) -550 -550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -550 0 0 Humboldt Co loc 2391 Humboldt Bay Trail (Eureka to Bracut Segment) 550 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 -550 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -800 California Transportation Commission Humboldt Page 15 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Humboldt Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Humboldt Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 29,646 31,475 0 1,829 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -800 Humboldt Page 16 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Imperial Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: ICTC 7200 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 8 542 Dogwood Av interchange landscaping (split at 1-14 vote) 3,694 3,694 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,040 0 800 9 845 Caltrans 8 526 Imperial Av interchange, reconstruct 37,900 4,250 0 33,650 0 0 0 1,650 27,650 0 1,800 800 6,000 ICTC 7200 Planning, programming, and monitoring 919 19 300 300 300 0 0 0 919 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 42,813 8,263 300 33,950 300 0 0 1,650 30,909 0 2,600 809 6,845 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 42,813 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 8 526 Imperial Av interchange, reconstruct -37,900 -4,250 0 -33,650 0 0 0 -1,650 -27,650 0 -1,800 -800 -6,000 Caltrans 8 526 Imperial Av interchange, reconstruct 37,840 6,428 0 0 0 31,412 0 1,650 25,412 0 3,289 1,489 6,000 ICTC 7200 Planning, programming, and monitoring -919 -19 -300 -300 -300 0 0 0 -919 0 0 0 0 ICTC 7200 Planning, programming, and monitoring 919 19 300 300 300 0 0 0 919 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -60 2,178 0 -33,650 0 31,412 0 0 -2,238 0 1,489 689 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -60 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations ICTC 7200 Planning, programming, and monitoring 600 0 0 0 0 300 300 0 600 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 24, 2016 PPNO 7200 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2016 ($925) and 2020 ($0) Balance of STIP County Share, Imperial Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 30,168 42,813 0 12,645 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -60 Imperial Page 17 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Inyo Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Inyo LTC 1010 Planning, programming, and monitoring Aug-14 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 Inyo County loc 2034 South Bishop resurfacing (ext 6-13) Dec-14 Dec-14 1,673 1,673 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,673 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 14 8042A Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 1 (RIP 10%) 4,489 1,380 3,109 0 0 0 0 950 2,799 0 250 180 310 Caltrans 14 8042B Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%) 3,258 975 2,283 0 0 0 0 1,653 0 0 975 630 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(RIP 40%) 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 40%) 46,820 11,420 0 0 35,400 0 0 5,407 32,160 2,749 2,051 1,213 3,240 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 Inyo County loc 2599 West Bishop resurfacing 2,885 2,885 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,885 0 0 0 0 Inyo LTC 1010 Planning, programming, and monitoring 800 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 64,125 20,733 7,592 200 35,600 0 0 8,010 42,517 4,749 3,276 2,023 3,550 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Inyo County loc 2586 Sunland Drive bicycle lanes (ext 6-13) Dec-14 Dec-14 670 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 670 0 0 0 0 Inyo County loc 2598 Ed Powers Rd, Red Hill Rd-Rt 395, bicycle lanes Jun-15 463 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 Inyo LTC loc 2517C Eastern Sierra Scenic Byway tourist cntr(ext 6-14) Oct-15 650 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 0 0 0 Bishop loc 2569 Seibu Ln, Paiute Reservation -schools, bike path 480 0 480 0 0 0 0 0 480 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 2,263 1,783 480 0 0 0 0 0 2,263 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 66,388 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 14 8042A Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 1 (RIP 10%) -4,489 -1,380 -3,109 0 0 0 0 -950 -2,799 0 -250 -180 -310 Caltrans 14 8042A Kem, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 1 (share w/Mono) 24,866 1,3801 0 0 0 23,486 0 950 21,144 0 250 180 2,342 Caltrans 14 8042B Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%) -3,258 -975 -2,283 0 0 0 0 -1,653 0 0 -975 -630 0 Caltrans 14 8042B Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%) close 360 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 40%) -46,820 -11,420 0 0 -35,400 0 0 -5,407 -32,160 -2,749 -2,051 -1,213 -3,240 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 40%) 11,420 11,420 0 0 0 0 0 5,407 0 2,749 2,051 1,213 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(RIP 40%) -2,000 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(RIP 40%) 2,000 0 Mr 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) -2,000 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) close 681 681 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 681 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -19,240 -1,934 -7,392 0 -33,400 23,486 0 -1,653 -13,815 -1,319 -615 -630 -1,208 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Bishop loc 2569 Seibu Ln, Paiute Reservation -schools, bike path -480 0 -480 0 0 0 0 0 -480 0 0 0 0 Bishop loc 2569 Seibu Ln, Paiute Reservation -schools, bike path 480 0 0 480 0 0 0 0 480 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 0 -480 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -19,240 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Inyo County loc 2618 South Lake Road Reconstruction (FLAP) NEW 1,481 0 112 0 1,369 0 0 0 1,369 0 112 0 0 California Transportation Commission Inyo Page 18 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Inyo Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior Project Totals by Fiscal Year 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Project Totals by Component Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup Con Sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 17, 2016 PPNO 8042 - Not new programming, replacing Kern and IIP funds PPNO 2569 - New project, can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Inyo Total County Share, June 30, 2015 48,467 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 66,388 Unprogrammed Share Balance 0 Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 17,921 Proposed New Programming-19,240 California Transportation Commission Inyo Page 19 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Kern Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E R/W sup con sup Highway Projects: Kern COG 6L03 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 299 299 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 14 8042A Freeman Gulch widening -Segment 1 (RIP 40%) 17,955 5,520 12,435 0 0 0 0 3,800 11,195 0 1,000 720 1,240 Caltrans 46 3386C Widen to 4 lanes, Seg 4A, Lost Hill Rd - e/o 1-5 (14S-25) 6,280 2,180 4,100 0 0 0 0 900 3,500 0 980 300 600 Caltrans 46 3412 Wasco-Jumper Av, 4 lane, env 2,070 2,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,070 0 0 0 Caltrans 58 3482 Tehachapi Dennison Rd interchange 2,704 2,704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 669 2,035 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(RIP 10%) 500 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 10%) 11,705 2,855 0 0 8,850 0 0 1,352 8,040 687 513 303 810 Bakersfield loc 3705 Rt 58-Westside Parkway Connector 33,001 0 0 33,001 0 0 0 0 33,001 0 0 0 0 Kern COG 6L03 Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,096 299 299 299 199 0 0 0 1,096 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 77,610 17,927 17,334 33,300 9,049 0 0 6,052 57,631 5,426 4,528 1,323 2,650 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Kern County loc 6610 Antelope Run Bike/Ped Path, Tehachapi Aug-14 396 396 0 0 0 0 0 0 396 0 0 0 0 Taft loc 6615 Rails to Trails, Ph 4 Oct-14 594 594 0 0 0 0 0 0 594 0 0 0 0 Tehachapi loc 6612 Tehachapi Blvd. Enhancements, Ph 3 Jan-15 465 465 0 0 0 0 0 0 465 0 0 0 0 Kern County loc 6617 College Heights Blvd. Ped. Path & Xeriscape Jun-15 377 377 0 0 0 0 0 0 377 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 1,832 1,832 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,832 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 79,442 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 14 8042A Freeman Gulch widening -Segment 1 (RIP 40%) -17,955 -5,520 -12,435 0 0 0 0 -3,800 -11,195 0 -1,000 -720 -1,240 Caltrans 14 8042A Freeman Gulch widening -Segment 1 (RIP 40%) 5,520 5,520 0 0 0 0 0 3,800 0 0 1,000 720 0 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 10%) -11,705 -2,855 0 0 -8,850 0 0 -1,352 -8,040 -687 -513 -303 -810 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 10%) 2,855 2,855 0 0 0 0 0 1,352 0 687 513 303 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(RIP 10%) -500 0 -500 0 0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(RIP 10%) 500 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) -2,000 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) close 681 681 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 681 0 0 0 Caltrans 46 3386C Widen to 4 lanes, Seg 4A, Lost Hill Rd - e/o 1-5 (14S-25) -6,280 -2,180 -4,100 0 0 0 0 -900 -3,500 0 -980 -300 -600 Caltrans 46 3386C Widen to 4 lanes, Seg 4A, Lost Hill Rd - e/o 1-5 (14S-25) 6,280 2,180 0 4,100 0 0 0 900 3,500 0 980 300 600 Bakersfield loc 3705 Rt 58-Westside Parkway Connector -33,001 0 0-33,001 0 0 0 0-33,001 0 0 0 0 Bakersfield loc 3705 Rt 58-Westside Parkway Connector 33,001 0 0 0 33,001 0 0 0 33,001 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -22,604 -1,319 -17,035 -28,901 24,651 0 0 0 -19,235 -1,319 0 0 -2,050 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -22,604 California Transportation Commission Kern Page 20 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Kern Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior Project Totals by Fiscal Year 16-17 17-18 18.19 19-20 20-21 R/W Project Totals by Component Const E & P PS&E RAW Sup Con Sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 Balance of STotal County Share, June 30, 2015 77,289 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 79,442 Unprogrammed Share Balance 0 Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 2,153 Proposed New Programming-22,604 California Transportation Commission Kern Page 21 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Kings Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup Con sup Highway Proiects: Caltrans 198 4330Y 19th Av I/C, Lemoore, landscping (split at vote)(ext 6-14) Dec-14 Oct-14 1,275 1,275 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,154 0 0 0 121 KCAG 6L04 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 198 4348Y 12th Av WC, Hanford, landscaping (split at 12-13 vote) 1,503 127 1,376 0 0 0 0 0 1,100 0 123 4 276 KCAG 6L04 Planning, programming, and monitoring 75 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 2,928 1,477 1,376 75 0 0 0 0 2,404 0 123 4 397 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Lemoore loc 6706 Cinnamon Drive bike/ped facilities Dec-14 419 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 419 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 419 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 3,347 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Proiect Proposals: Caltrans 198 4348Y 12th Av WC, Hanford, landscaping (split at 12-13 vote) -1,503 -127 -1,376 0 0 0 0 0 -1,100 0 -123 -4 -276 Caltrans 198 4348Y 12th Av WC, Hanford, landscaping (split at 12-13 vote) 1,503 127 0 0 0 1,376 0 0 1,100 0 123 4 276 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 -1,376 0 0 1,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 24, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Kings Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn -11,753 3,347 0 15,100 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Kings Page 22 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Lake Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Lake CCAPC 3002P Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 64 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 29 3100 Widen to 4 lanes, Rt 281-Rt 175, Seg 2C (RIP)(SHOPP) 14,767 2,900 0 11,867 0 0 0 2,000 10,867 0 750 150 1,000 Lake County loc 3032R S. Main St, Lakeport-Rt 175, widen, bike (14S-11) 4,369 0 4,369 0 0 0 0 0 4,369 0 0 0 0 Lake County loc 3033R Soda Bay Rd, Rt 175-Manning Crk, widen, bike In(14S-11) 662 0 662 0 0 0 0 0 662 0 0 0 0 Clearlake loc 3088 Dam Rd (Phillips Ave), Center Dr-18th Ave, extend 93 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 58 0 0 Lakeport loc 3089 Lakeport Blvd and S. Main St, improve intersection 265 71 194 0 0 0 0 106 0 71 88 0 0 Lake CCAPC 3002P Planning, programming, and monitoring 260 41 68 76 75 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 20,480 3,169 5,293 11,943 75 0 0 2,106 16,222 106 896 150 1,000 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 20,480 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Lake County loc 3033R Soda Bay Rd, Rt 175-Manning Crk, widen, bike In(14S-11) -662 0 -662 0 0 0 0 0 -662 0 0 0 0 Lake County loc 3033R Soda Bay Rd, Rt 175-Manning Crk, widen, bike In (demo) 662 0 0 662 0 0 0 0 662 0 0 0 0 Lake County loc 3032R S. Main St, Lakeport-Rt 175, widen, bike (14S-11) -4,369 0 -4,369 0 0 0 0 0 -4,369 0 0 0 0 Lake County loc 3032R S. Main St, Lakeport-Rt 175, widen, bike (demo) 4,369 0 0 4,369 0 0 0 0 4,369 0 0 0 0 Clearlake loc 3088 Dam Rd (Phillips Ave), Center Dr-18th Ave, extend -93 -93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35 -58 0 0 Clearlake loc 3088 Dam Rd (Phillips Ave), Center Dr-18th Ave, extend 93 0 0 0 35 0 58 0 0 35 58 0 0 Lakeport loc 3089 Lakeport Blvd and S. Main St, improve intersection -265 -71 -194 0 0 0 0 -106 0 -71 -88 0 0 Lakeport loc 3089 Lakeport Blvd and S. Main St, improve intersection 71 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 71 0 0 0 Caltrans 29 3100 Widen to 4 lanes, Rt 281-Rt 175, Seg 2C (RIP)(SHOPP) -14,767 -2,900 0 -11,867 0 0 0 -2,000 -10,867 0 -750 -150 -1,000 Caltrans 29 3100 Widen to 4 lanes, Rt 281-Rt 175, Seg 2C (RIP)(SHOPP) 14,767 2,900 0 0 11,867 0 0 2,000 10,867 0 750 150 1,000 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -194 -164 -5,225 -6,836 11,902 0 129 -106 0 0 -88 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -194 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 10, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Lake Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 20,485 20,480 5 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -194 Lake Page 23 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Lassen Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Susanville loc 2511 City street rehab (SC) Mar-15 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2512 City street rehab (SC1) Mar-15 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2513 City street rehab (SC2) Mar-15 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2514 City street rehab (SC3) Mar-15 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2515 City street rehab (SC4) Mar-15 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2516 City street rehab (SC5) Mar-15 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2563 Mooney Rd, 3.8 mi w/o Rt 44 (HR3), realign curve May-15 900 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 0 Lassen LTC 2124 Planning, programming, and monitoring May-15 70 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2121A Skyline Rd East/Extension, phase 2 (14S-16) 3,900 0 3,900 0 0 0 0 0 3,900 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2356 County Rehab B (Pumpkin Center, Ash Valley Rds) 1,950 0 1,950 0 0 0 0 0 1,950 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2391 County Rehab A (Eagle Lake Rd, Mooney Rd) 1,550 1,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,550 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2510 City street rehab (FC) (14S-10) 1,846 0 1,846 0 0 0 0 0 1,846 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2511 City street rehab (SC) 963 963 0 0 0 0 0 0 963 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2512 City street rehab (SC1) 866 866 0 0 0 0 0 0 866 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2513 City street rehab (SC2) 992 992 0 0 0 0 0 0 992 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2514 City street rehab (SC3) 951 951 0 0 0 0 0 0 951 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2515 City street rehab (SC4) 985 30 955 0 0 0 0 0 955 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2516 City street rehab (SC5) 986 30 956 0 0 0 0 0 956 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2561 City street rehab (FD) 2,440 120 0 80 2,240 0 0 0 2,240 120 80 0 0 Lassen County loc 2562 Beaver Creek Bridge 7C-82 (HBP match), replace 254 0 254 0 0 0 0 0 254 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2564 Center Rd, Rt 395-Johnstonville Rd, reconstruct 2,890 0 0 0 2,890 0 0 0 2,890 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2565 New Main St-Johnstonville Rd Connection 100 0 80 0 20 0 0 0 0 80 20 0 0 Lassen LTC 2124 Planning, programming, and monitoring 432 100 111 111 110 0 0 0 432 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 22,205 6,702 10,052 191 5,260 0 0 0 21,715 210 280 0 0 Rail and Transit Proiects: Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Proiects: Susanville loc 3492 Rt 36, Johnstonville-Riverside, Southeast Gateway ped Jan-15 160 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 0 Susanville loc 3492 Rt 36, Johnstonville-Riverside, Southeast Gateway ped 120 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 280 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 120 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 22,485 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Lassen County loc 2121A Skyline Rd East/Extension, phase 2 (14S-16) -3,900 0 -3,900 0 0 0 0 0 -3,900 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2121A Skyline Rd East/Extension, phase 2 (14S-16) 3,900 0 0 3,900 0 0 0 0 3,900 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2356 County Rehab B (Pumpkin Center, Ash Valley Rds) -1,950 0 -1,950 0 0 0 0 0 -1,950 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2356 County Rehab B (Pumpkin Center, Ash Valley Rds) 1,950 0 0 0 1,950 0 0 0 1,950 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2510 City street rehab (FC) (14S-10) -1,846 0 -1,846 0 0 0 0 0 -1,846 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2510 City street rehab (FC) (14S-10) 1,846 0 0 1,846 0 0 0 0 1,846 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2515 City street rehab (SC4) -985 -30 -955 0 0 0 0 0 -955 0 -30 0 0 Susanville loc 2515 City street rehab (SC4) 985 30 0 0 955 0 0 0 955 0 30 0 0 Susanville loc 2516 City street rehab (SC5) -986 -30 -956 0 0 0 0 0 -956 0 -30 0 0 Susanville loc 2516 City street rehab (SC5) 986 30 0 0 956 0 0 0 956 0 30 0 0 California Transportation Commission Lassen Page 24 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Lassen Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Susanville loc 2561 City street rehab (FD) -2,440 -120 0 -80 -2,240 0 0 0 -2,240 -120 -80 0 0 Susanville loc 2561 City street rehab (FD) 200 120 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 120 80 0 0 Lassen County loc 2562 Beaver Creek Bridge 7C-82 (HBP match), replace -254 0 -254 0 0 0 0 0 -254 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2562 Beaver Creek Bridge 7C-82 (HBP match), replace 254 0 0 254 0 0 0 0 254 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2564 Center Rd, Rt 395-Johnstonville Rd, reconstruct -2,890 0 0 0 -2,890 0 0 0 -2,890 0 0 0 0 Lassen County loc 2564 Center Rd, Rt 395-Johnstonville Rd, reconstruct 2,890 0 0 0 0 0 2,894 0 2,890 0 0 0 0 Susanville loc 2565 New Main St-Johnstonville Rd Connection DELETE -100 0 -80 0 A 0 0 0 0 -80 -20 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -2,340 0 -9,941 5,920 -1,209 0 2,890 0 -2,240 -80 -20 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Susanville loc 3492 Rt 36, Johnstonville-Riverside, Southeast Gateway ped -120 -120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -120 0 0 Susanville loc 3492 Rt 36, Johnstonville-Riverside, Southeast Gateway ped 120 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 -120 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -2,340 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Susanville loc 2561 City street rehab (FD) 2,240 0 0 0 2,240 0 0 0 2,240 0 0 0 0 Notes: RTIP adopted November 9, 2015 (no revisions) PPNOs 2561 and 2564 - Construction can be reprogrammed in a future STIP PPNO 2565 - pre construction only - can be reprogrammed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Lassen Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 25,790 22,485 3,305 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -2,340 Lassen Page 25 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Los Angeles Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RAN sup Con sup Highway Projects: LACMTA 9001 Planning, programming, and monitoring Dec-14 3,098 3,098 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,098 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 10 310B HOV lanes, Citrus St -Route 57 (rpt R/W in May'16) May-15 47,059 47,059 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 0 19,844 1,500 17,715 Caltrans 5 2808 Widen,HOV,OraCo-Rt 605Seg2(RIP,TCRP,SHOPP)(ext6-14) Jun-15 Jun-15 226,749 226,749 0 0 0 0 0 200,510 0 0 1,440 5,109 19,690 Caltrans 5 2808C Widening, Florence -Eastern 432 432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 432 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 2808D Rt 710 interchange reconstruction 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 4156 Widen, HOV, Orange Co-Rt 605 Seg 5 (RIP)(CMIA)(12S-48) 42,165 42,165 0 0 0 0 0 36,452 0 0 5,586 127 0 Caltrans 71 2741 Convert to 6-lane fwy, Rt 10-Rt 60 1,592 1,592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,592 0 0 0 Caltrans 138 393F Rt 14-50th St, new expwy, R/W 13,935 13,935 0 0 0 0 0 13,935 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 138 4560 Widening Segment 9, 126th St E - Longview Rd 12,600 12,600 0 0 0 0 0 2,900 7,800 0 0 0 1,900 Caltrans 138 4356 Widening Segment 6, 87th St E-96th St E (14S-07) 18,200 4,500 13,700 0 0 0 0 4,500 10,700 0 0 0 3,000 Caltrans 138 4357 Widening Segment 13, 190th St E - Rt 18 (14S-07) 51,400 9,500 41,900 0 0 0 0 9,500 35,400 0 0 0 6,500 Caltrans 710 2215 Gap closure, Rt 10-Rt 210 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 710 3612 Early Action Projects in Long Beach 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 710 219M South Pasadena, Rt 10-Rt 210, freeway 3,803 3,803 0 0 0 0 0 3,803 0 0 0 0 0 LACMTA 9001 Planning, programming, and monitoring 18,846 3,098 6,136 4,995 4,617 0 0 0 18,846 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 450,279 378,931 61,736 4,995 4,617 0 0 279,600 75,844 12,424 26,870 6,736 48,805 Rail and Transit Projects: LACMTA rail 4025 Light rail vehicles (78 plus 39 w/option) Mar-15 75,431 75,431 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,431 0 0 0 0 LACMTA rail 4025 Light rail vehicles (78 plus 39 w/option) Jun-15 27,000 0 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 27,000 0 0 0 0 LACMTA rail 4025 Light rail vehicles (78 plus 39 w/option) 102,400 0 0 50,000 52,400 0 0 0 102,400 0 0 0 0 LACMTA cash 4027A AB 3090 reimbursement (12S-015) fr 17-18 to 19-20 34,400 0 0 6,880 27,520 0 0 0 34,400 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 239,231 75,431 27,000 56,880 79,920 0 0 0 239,231 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 689,510 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 138 4356 Widening Segment 6, 87th St E-96th St E (14S-07) -18,200 -4,500 -13,700 0 0 0 0 4,500 -10,700 0 0 0 -3,000 Caltrans 138 4356 Widening Segment 6, 87th St E-96th St E (14S-07) 4,500 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 138 4357 Widening Segment 13, 190th St E - Rt 18 (14S-07) -51,400 -9,500 -41,900 0 0 0 0 -9,500 -35,400 0 0 0 -6,500 Caltrans 138 4357 Widening Segment 13, 190th St E - Rt 18 (14S-07) 9,500 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -55,600 0-55,600 0 0 0 0 0-46,100 0 0 0 -9,500 Rail and Transit Project Proposals: LACMTA rail 4025 Light rail vehicles (78 plus 39 w/option) -102,400 0 0 -50,000 -52,400 0 0 0 -102,400 0 0 0 0 LACMTA rail 4025 Light rail vehicles (78 plus 39 w/option) 102,400 0 0 21,700 26,200 26,700 27,800 0 102,400 0 0 0 0 LACMTA cash 4027A AB 3090 reimbursement (12S-015) fr 17-18 to 19-20 -34,400 0 0 -6,880 -27,520 0 0 0 -34,400 0 0 0 0 LACMTA cash 4027A AB 3090 reimbursement (12S-015) 34,400 0 0 6,880 17,200 10,320 0 0 34,400 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail and Transit Proposals 0 0 0-28,300 -36,520 37,020 27,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -55,600 California Transportation Commission Los Angeles Page 26 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Los Angeles Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RAN sup Con sup Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Caltrans 138 393F Rt 14-50th St, new expwy, R/W DELETE -13,935 -13,935 0 0 0 0 0 -13,935 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 138 4357 Widening Segment 13, 190th St E - Rt 18 (14S-07) incr 55,659 0 0 0 0 0 55,659 0 48,159 0 0 0 7,500 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 17, 2016 PPNO 393F - Project cannot be deleted since it was already closed out in 2015 PPNOs 4356 and 4357 - Construction can be reprogrammed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Los Angeles Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 689,669 689,510 159 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -55,600 Los Angeles Page 27 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Madera Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup Con sup Highway Projects: Caltrans 41 6606 Passing Lanes Mar-15 11,047 2,577 8,470 0 0 0 0 0 8,470 0 0 0 2,577 Madera CTC 6L05 Planning, programming, and monitoring May-15 87 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 5335 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, widen to 6 lanes (RIP) 1,545 0 1,545 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,545 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 6297 South of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, widen to 6 lanes (RIP) 1,500 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 Madera CTC 6L05 Planning, programming, and monitoring 448 87 120 120 121 0 0 0 448 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 14,627 2,664 11,722 120 121 0 0 0 9,005 3,045 0 0 2,577 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 14,627 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 99 5335 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, widen to 6 lanes (RIP) -1,545 0 -1,545 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,545 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 5335 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, widen to 6 lanes 1,545 0 0 0 0 1,545 0 0 0 0 1,545 0 0 Caltrans 99 6297 South of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, widen to 6 lanes (RIP) DELETE -1,500 0 -1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,500 0 0 0 Madera CTC 6L05 Planning, programming, and monitoring -448 -87 -120 -120 -121 0 0 0 -448 0 0 0 0 Madera CTC 6L05 Planning, programming, and monitoring 448 87 121 120 120 0 0 0 448 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,500 0 -3,044 0 -1 1,545 0 0 0 -3,045 1,545 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,500 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 17, 2016 PPNO 5335 - Local funds to replace IIP funds Balance of STIP County Share, Madera Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 4,734 14,627 0 9,893 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,500 Madera Page 28 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Marin Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: MTC 2127 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 TA Marin 101 342L Marin-Sonoma Narrows: mitigation planting Aug-14 160 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 TA Marin 101 360L Marin-Sonoma Narrows: mitigation and soundwall Aug-14 705 705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 705 0 0 Caltrans 101 342T Marin-Sonoma Narrows: off -site mitigation Oct-14 695 695 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 220 0 0 Caltrans 101 360L Marin-Sonoma Narrows: mitigation and soundwall Jun-15 3,857 3,857 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,182 0 0 0 675 TA Marin 101 342L Marin-Sonoma Narrows: mitigation planting (ext 6-15) Mar-16 800 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 TA Marin 2127C Planning, programming, and monitoring 412 0 206 206 0 0 0 0 412 0 0 0 0 MTC 2127 Planning, programming, and monitoring 98 23 24 25 26 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 6,750 6,263 230 231 26 0 0 0 4,990 0 1,085 0 675 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 571 0 571 0 0 0 0 0 571 0 0 0 0 Marin Co PW loc 2127S Miller Creek Rd bike lanes, Rt 101-Las Gallinas Av 362 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 0 Marin County loc 2128D North Civic Center Dr Improvements (ext 6-15) Dec-15 407 407 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 0 0 0 0 Fairfax loc 2128E Parkade Area Circulation Improvements 300 45 255 0 0 0 0 0 255 0 45 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 1,640 814 826 0 0 0 0 0 1,595 0 45 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 8,390 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -571 0 -571 0 0 0 0 0 -571 0 0 0 0 Fairfax loc 2128E Parkade Area Circulation Improvements -300 -45 -255 0 0 0 0 0 -255 0 -45 0 0 Fairfax loc 2128E Parkade Area Circulation Improvements 300 45 0 255 0 0 0 0 255 0 45 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -571 0 -826 255 0 0 0 0 -571 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -571 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Marin Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn (25,002) 8,390 0 33,392 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -571 Marin Page 29 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Mariposa Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Mariposa Co loc 3K1A Triangle Rd, PM 20.06-21.62, rehab (10S-025) May-15 826 826 0 0 0 0 0 0 826 0 0 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 214 Chowchilla Mtn Rd/Harris Cutoff (10S-025) May-15 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Mariposa CLTC 4957 Planning, programming, and monitoring (10S-025) May-15 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 208 Silva Rd, PM 10-11.092, rehab 538 7 531 0 0 0 0 0 531 0 7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 212 Triangle Rd, PM 11.8-14.11, rehab (10S-025) 838 0 7 831 0 0 0 0 831 0 7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 214 Chowchilla Mtn Rd/Hams Cutoff (10S-025) 814 814 0 0 0 0 0 0 814 0 0 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3049 Merced Falls Rd, Phase I, PM 10.00-12.50, rehab 912 0 0 7 905 0 0 0 905 0 7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3050 Ben Hur Rd, PM 15.00-18.50, reconstruction 1,115 0 0 25 1,090 0 0 0 1,090 0 25 0 0 Mariposa CLTC 4957 Planning, programming, and monitoring (10S-025) 140 35 35 35 35 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 5,225 1,724 573 898 2,030 0 0 0 5,172 0 53 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 5,225 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Mariposa Co loc 214 Chowchilla Mtn Rd/Harris Cutoff (10S-025) -814 -814 0 0 0 0 0 0 -814 0 0 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 214 Chowchilla Mtn Rd/Hams Cutoff (10S-025) 814 0 814 0 0 0 0 0 814 0 0 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 208 Silva Rd, PM 10-11.092, rehab -538 -7 -531 0 0 0 0 0 -531 0 -7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 208 Silva Rd, PM 10-11.092, rehab 538 0 7 531 0 0 0 0 531 0 7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 212 Triangle Rd, PM 11.8-14.11, rehab (10S-025) -838 0 -7 -831 0 0 0 0 -831 0 -7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 212 Triangle Rd, PM 11.8-14.11, rehab (10S-025) 838 0 0 7 831 0 0 0 831 0 7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3049 Merced Falls Rd, Phase I, PM 10.00-12.50, rehab -912 0 0 -7 -905 0 0 0 -905 0 -7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3049 Merced Falls Rd, Phase I, PM 10.00-12.50, rehab 912 0 0 0 7 0 905 0 905 0 7 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3050 Ben Hur Rd, PM 15.00-18.50,reconstruction -1,115 0 0 -25 -1,090 0 0 0 -1,090 0 -25 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3050 Ben Hur Rd, PM 15.00-18.50, reconstruction 25 0 0 0 i, 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 Mariposa CLTC 4957 Planning, programming, and monitoring (10S-025) -140 -35 -35 -35 -35 0 0 0 -140 0 0 0 0 Mariposa CLTC 4957 Planning, programming, and monitoring (10S-025) 140 35 35 35 35 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,090 -821 283 -325 -1,157 25 905 0 -1,090 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,090 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Alpine County loc 3115 Hot Springs Road reconstruction (14S-28) NEW 760 0 0 0 0 760 0 0 760 0 0 0 0 Mariposa Co loc 3050 Ben Hur Rd, PM 15.00-18.50, reconstruction 1,090 0 0 0 0 1,090 0 0 1,090 0 0 0 0 Mariposa CLTC 4957 Planning, programming, and monitoring (10S-025) 35 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Mariposa Page 30 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Mariposa Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior Project Totals by Fiscal Year 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Project Totals by Component Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup Con Sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted December 8, 2015 (no revision) PPNO 4957 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2016 ($136) PPNO 3115 - Construction can be reprogrammed in a future STIP PPNO 3050 - Construction can be reprogrammed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Mariposa Total County Share, June 30, 2015 6,903 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 5,225 Unprogrammed Share Balance 1,678 Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 0 Proposed New Programming -1,090 California Transportation Commission Mariposa Page 31 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Mendocino Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: MCOG 4002P Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 91 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125F Willits Bypass (grf,incr)(RIP, 15 % con, RIW)(supplmntal) Dec-14 9,705 9,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,705 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125W Willits Bypass Relinquishment (grf) (14S-15) 546 30 516 0 0 0 0 30 516 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125Y Ryan Creek/Coho Salmon Mitigation (grf)(12S-043) 345 345 0 0 0 0 0 15 330 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) 555 30 525 0 0 0 0 30 525 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Co loc 4590 Rt 101/N. State St I/C improvements, roundabout, Ph1 468 0 0 132 336 0 0 0 0 132 336 0 0 Mendocino Co loc 4073P East Side Potter Valley Rd, rehab, Ph1 (14S-14) 3,150 0 3,150 0 0 0 0 0 3,150 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4561 Gobbi St / Waugh Lane intersection, traffic signal 644 112 532 0 0 0 0 20 532 2 90 0 0 Ukiah loc 4562 Low Gap Rd / N. Bush St intersection, roundabout 818 115 0 703 0 0 0 25 703 5 85 0 0 MCOG 4002P Planning, programming, and monitoring 628 140 145 164 179 0 0 0 628 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 16,950 10,568 4,868 999 515 0 0 120 16,180 139 511 0 0 Rail and Transit Projects: Mendocino TA bus 4560 Revenue vehicle replacements, six (6) 88 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 88 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Mendocino Co loc 4517 Laytonville, Branscomb Rd, multi -use bridge (ext 6-14) Mar-15 Mar-15 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 Mendocino Co loc 4517 Laytonville, Branscomb Rd, multi -use bridge(12S-027 May-15 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 1 4579 Gualala Downtown Streetscape Improvements 340 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 340 0 0 0 Ft Bragg loc 4593 Rt 1 (Main St) bike & ped access improvements 1,485 0 0 155 1,330 0 0 0 1,330 45 110 0 0 Mendocino Co loc 4517 Laytonville, Branscomb Rd, multi -use bridge (14S-14) 385 0 385 0 0 0 0 0 385 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4563 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph1) (ext 6-14) Oct-15 99 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 Ukiah loc 4563 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph1)(14S-02) 1,155 0 1,155 0 0 0 0 0 1,155 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4591 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph2) 1,369 0 0 0 1,369 0 0 0 1,369 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 4,888 494 1,540 155 2,699 0 0 25 4,239 385 239 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 21,926 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Proiect Proposals: Mendocino Co loc 4590 Rt 101/N. State St I/C improvements, roundabout, Ph1 DELETE -468 0 0 -132 -336 0 0 0 0 -132 -336 0 0 Mendocino Co loc 4073P East Side Potter Valley Rd, rehab, Ph1 (14S-14) -3,150 0 -3,150 0 0 0 0 0 -3,150 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Co loc 4073P East Side Potter Valley Rd, rehab, Ph1 (14S-14) 3,150 0 0 0 w 0 3,150 0 0 3,150 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4561 Gobbi St / Waugh Lane intersection, traffic signal -644 -112 -532 0 0 0 0 -20 -532 -2 -90 0 0 Ukiah loc 4561 Gobbi St / Waugh Lane intersection, traffic signal 644 2 90 20 532 0 0 20 532 2 90 0 0 Ukiah loc 4562 Low Gap Rd / N. Bush St intersection, roundabout -818 -115 0 -703 0 0 0 -25 -703 -5 -85 0 0 Ukiah loc 4562 Low Gap Rd / N. Bush St intersection, roundabout 115 0 0 0 0 5 110 25 0 5 85 0 0 Caltrans 101 125W Willits Bypass Relinquishment (grf) (14S-15) -546 -30 -516 0 0 0 0 -30 -516 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125W Willits Bypass Relinquishment (grf) (14S-15) 546 30 0 516 0 0 0 30 516 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) -555 -30 -525 0 0 0 0 -30 -525 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) 555 30 0 525 0 0 0 30 525 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,171 -225 -4,633 226 196 3,155 110 0 -703 -132 -336 0 0 California Transportation Commission Mendocino Page 32 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Mendocino Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 1 4579 Gualala Downtown Streetscape Improvements -340 -340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -340 0 0 0 Caltrans 1 4579 Gualala Downtown Streetscape Improvements 340 0 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 340 0 0 0 Ft Bragg loc 4593 Rt 1 (Main St) bike & ped access improvements DELETE -1,485 0 0 -155 -1,330 0 0 0 -1,330 -45 -110 0 0 Ukiah loc 4563 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph1)(14S-02) -1,155 0 -1,155 0 0 0 0 0 -1,155 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4563 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph1)(HSIP) 1,155 0MIEr0 1,1551 0 0 0 0 1,155 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4591 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph2) -1,369 0 0 0 -1,369 0 0 0 -1,369 0 0 0 0 Ukiah loc 4591 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape improvements (Ph2) 1,369 0 0 0 0r 0 1,369 0 1,369 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -1,485 -340 -815 1,000 -2,699 0 1,369 0 -1,330 -45 -110 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -2,656 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) incr 43 0 43 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 1, 2016 PPNO 125Z - Right of Way increase can be reported at vote Balance of STIP County Share, Mendocino Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 14,607 21,926 0 7,319 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -2,656 Mendocino Page 33 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Merced Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Caltrans 152 5707A Los Banos Bypass Segment 1 (RIP)(08S-09) 4,560 4,560 0 0 0 0 0 1,750 0 0 2,540 270 0 MCAG 5960 Planning, programming, and monitoring 643 0 250 393 0 0 0 0 643 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 5,203 4,560 250 393 0 0 0 1,750 643 0 2,540 270 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 5,203 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 152 5707A Los Banos Bypass Segment 1 (RIP)(08S-09) -4,560 -4,560 0 0 0 0 0 -1,750 0 0 -2,540 -270 0 Caltrans 152 5707A Los Banos Bypass Segment 1 (RIP)(08S-09) close 1,477 1,477 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1,437 35 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -3,083 -3,083 0 0 0 0 0 -1,745 0 0 -1,103 -235 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -3,083 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted November 11, 2015 Balance of STIP County Share, Merced Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 24,324 5,203 19,121 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -3,083 Merced Page 34 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Modoc Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup con sup Highway Projects: Alturas loc 2508 Alturas, various locations, rehab SB 184 Aug-14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Modoc Co loc 3269 CR 1, Cedarville -Fort Bidwell, rehab (ext 5-14) Jun-15 Aug-14 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 Alturas loc 2508 Alturas, various locations, rehab Jan-15 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 Caltrans 299 3368 Mill St-Rt299/Rt395 IC, turn lanes 6 shoulders, non-TE (12S-044) Jan-15 2,234 2,234 0 0 0 0 0 20 1,200 221 362 112 319 Alturas loc 2508 Alturas, various locations, rehab Mar-15 679 679 0 0 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 139 3383 Perez Inspection Station, install CCTV/RWIS (CCA 6-15) Jun-15 -7 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 0 Alturas loc 2535 Oak and Juniper Streets, both fr Rt 299 to 19th St, rehab 971 81 890 0 0 0 0 0 890 20 61 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2536 CR 87, in Adin, Rt 299-CR 91, rehab 632 0 0 65 567 0 0 0 567 60 5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2537 CR 111, Rt 139-CR 108, rehab 687 0 0 73 614 0 0 0 614 68 5 0 0 Alturas loc 2538 Alturas, on East St, Modoc St-4th St, rehab 962 0 82 250 630 0 0 250 630 27 55 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2539 CR 114, Rt 139-CR 101, rehab 407 0 0 45 362 0 0 0 362 40 5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2540 CR 272, Lassen-Modoc Co Line to Day Rd, rehab 196 0 0 25 171 0 0 0 171 20 5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2438 CR 55, Rt 395-CR 247A, rehab, env and design 75 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 60 15 0 0 Modoc Co loc 3269 CR 1, Cedarville -Fort Bidwell, rehab 4,832 4,832 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,832 0 0 0 0 Modoc CTC 2051 Planning, programming, and monitoring 207 30 59 59 59 0 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 11,945 7,919 1,031 517 2,478 0 0 270 10,152 517 582 105 319 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Alturas loc 2534 Ped. Improv. Alturas Central Bus. District (12S-044) Jan-15 51 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 Caltrans 89 3355 Greenville, Hideaway Rd -Mill St, realign, improv (14S-17) 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 30 0 Alturas loc 2534 Ped. Improv. Alturas Central Bus. District (12S-044) 1,022 80 942 0 0 0 0 80 942 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 1,103 161 942 0 0 0 0 80 942 0 51 30 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 13,048 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Alturas loc 2535 Oak and Juniper Streets, both fr Rt 299 to 19th St, rehab -971 -81 -890 0 0 0 0 0 -890 -20 -61 0 0 Alturas loc 2535 Oak and Juniper Streets, both fr Rt 299 to 19th St, rehab 971 81 0 890 0 0 0 0 890 20 61 0 0 Alturas loc 2538 Alturas, on East St, Modoc St-4th St, rehab -962 0 -82 -250 -630 0 0 -250 -630 -27 -55 0 0 Alturas loc 2538 Alturas, on East St, Modoc St-4th St, rehab 425 0 0 0 75 100 250 250 0 75 100 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2536 CR 87, in Adin, Rt 299-CR 91, rehab -632 0 0 -65 -567 0 0 0 -567 -60 -5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2536 CR 87, in Adin, Rt 299-CR 91, rehab 632 0 0 60 5 567 0 0 567 60 5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2537 CR 111, Rt 139-CR 108, rehab DELETE -687 0 0 -73 -614 0 0 0 -614 -68 -5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2438 CR 55, Rt 395-CR 247A, rehab, env and design DELETE -75 0 0 0 -75 0 0 0 0 -60 -15 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2539 CR 114, Rt 139-CR 101, rehab -407 0 0 -45 -362 0 0 0 -362 -40 -5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2539 CR 114, Rt 139-CR 101, rehab 100 0 0 0 0 40 60 0- 0 40 60 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2540 CR 272, Lassen-Modoc Co Line to Day Rd, rehab -196 0 0 -25 -171 0 0 0 -171 -20 -5 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2540 CR 272, Lassen-Modoc Co Line to Day Rd, rehab 90 0 0 0 0 90 0 01.- 0 50 40 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,712 0 -972 492 -2,339 797 310 0 -1,777 -50 115 0 0 California Transportation Commission Modoc Page 35 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Modoc Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Alturas loc 2534 Ped. Improv. Alturas Central Bus. District (12S-044) -1,022 -80 -942 0 0 0 0 -80 -942 0 0 0 0 Alturas loc 2534 Ped. Improv. Alturas Central Bus. District (12S-044) 1,022 80 0 942 0 0 0 80 942 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 0 -942 942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,712 Modoc Co Nom'nated Proiects Not Included in Staff Recommendations loc 2539 CR 114, Rt 139-CR 101, rehab incr 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 Modoc Co loc 2540 CR 272, Lassen-Modoc Co Line to Day Rd, rehab incr 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP approved April 14, 2016 PPNOs 2539 & 2540 - Construction with increases can be reprogrammed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Modoc Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 12,689 13.048 0 359 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1.712 Modoc Page 36 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Mono Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Mono County loc 2604 Convict Lake Rd (Fed'I Lands Access match) Oct-14 79 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 Mono LTC 2003 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2604 Convict Lake Rd (Fed'I Lands Access match) Mar-15 584 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2601 Rt 203 (W Minaret Rd), Sidewalk & Safety May-15 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2602 Rt 203 (N Main St), Sidewalk & Safety, Ph 2a,2b,3 May-15 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 Caltrans 14 8042A Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 1 (RIP 10%) 4,489 1,380 3,109 0 0 0 0 950 2,799 0 250 180 310 Caltrans 14 8042B Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%) 3,258 975 2,283 0 0 0 0 1,653 0 0 975 630 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre -Mitigation (RIP 10%) 500 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 10%) 11,705 2,855 0 0 8,850 0 0 1,352 8,040 687 513 303 810 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 8539 Kern, Inyokem 4-lane (RIP 10%) 310 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2601 Rt 203 (W Minaret Rd), Sidewalk & Safety 750 175 575 0 0 0 0 125 575 0 50 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2602 Rt 203 (N Main St), Sidewalk & Safety, Ph 2a,2b,3 2,090 2,090 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 90 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2595 Meridian Roundabout and signal relocation 2,610 0 0 2,610 0 0 0 0 2,610 0 0 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2603 Airport Road, rehab 1,273 0 31 52 1,190 0 0 0 1,190 31 52 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2605 Countywide Preventive Maintenance Program - PMS 1,150 50 100 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,000 50 100 0 0 Mono LTC 2003 Planning, programming, and monitoring 665 130 175 180 180 0 0 0 665 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 31,678 10,843 6,773 3,842 10,220 0 0 4,080 20,093 3,242 2,030 1,113 1120 Rail and Transit Projects: Mono LTC bus 2566 Replacement Vehicles, E Sierra Transit Authority Mar-15 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 Mono LTC bus 2566 Replacement Vehicles, E Sierra Transit Authority 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 32,078 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Proiect Proposals: Caltrans 14 8042A Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 1 (RIP 10%) -4,489 -1,380 -3,109 0 0 0 0 -950 -2,799 0 -250 -180 -310 Caltrans 14 8042A Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 1 (share w/Inyo 8,982 1,380 0 0 0 7,602 0 950 6,844 0 250 180- Caltrans 14 8042B Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%) -3,258 -975 -2,283 0 0 0 0 -1,653 0 0 -975 -630 0 Caltrans 14 8042B Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%) close 360 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 10%) -11,705 -2,855 0 0 -8,850 0 0 -1,352 -8,040 -687 -513 -303 -810 Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (RIP 10%) 2,168 2,168 0 0 0 0 0 1,352 0 0 513 303 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre -Mitigation (RIP 10%) -500 0 -500 0 0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre -Mitigation (RIP 10%) 500 0! 0 500 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) -2,000 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B SBd, Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) close 681 681 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 681 0 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2601 Rt 203 (W Minaret Rd), Sidewalk & Safety -750 -175 -575 0 0 0 0 -125 -575 0 -50 0 0 Mammoth Lakes Ioc 2601 Rt 203 (W Minaret Rd), Sidewalk & Safety 750 175 0 575 0 0 0 125 575 0 50 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2603 Airport Road, rehab -1,273 0 -31 -52 -1,190 0 0 0 -1,190 -31 -52 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2603 Airport Road, rehab 1,273 0 0 0 31 52 1,190 0 1,190 31 52 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2605 Countywide Preventive Maintenance Program - PMS -1,150 -50 -100 -1,000 0 0 0 0 -1,000 -50 -100 0 0 Mono County Ioc 2605 Countywide Preventive Maintenance Program - PMS 1,150 50 0 100 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 50 100 0 0 California Transportation Commission Mono Page 37 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Mono Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Mono LTC 2003 Planning, programming, and monitoring -665 -130 -175 -180 -180 0 0 0 -665 0 0 0 0 Mono LTC 2003 Planning, programming, and monitoring 535 130 135 135 135 0 0 0 535 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -9,391 -2,621 -6,638 -422 -8,554 7,654 1,190 -1,653 -4,125 -2,006 -615 -630 -362 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -9,391 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Mono LTC bus 2566 Replacement Vehicles, E Sierra Transit Authority incr 620 0 0 0 0 305 315 0 620 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 8, 2016 PPNO 8042A - Not a new project, replacing Kern & IIP funds Balance of STIP County Share, Mono Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 34,003 32,078 1,925 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -9,391 Mono Page 38 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Monterey Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup con sup Highway Projects: TAMC 1165 Planning, programming, and monitoring Dec-14 259 259 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 Marina loc 2572 Imjin Road Widening to 4 lanes Jan-15 1,650 1,650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,650 0 0 0 TAMC 1165 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 213 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 58Y Prunedale landscape mitigation (RIP)(fr 58G)(12S-16)(ext 5-15) Feb-17 3,337 3,337 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,578 0 243 5 511 Caltrans 101 3300 South County Frontage Roads 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 156 57C 4-lane expressway, Castroville-Prunedale (RIP) 32,500 4,500 0 28,000 0 0 0 26,000 0 0 4,500 2,000 0 Monterey Co loc 1814 Rt 1 op improvements, Carmel, con (14S-13) 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 Monterey Co loc 1813A Rt 68 Corral de Tierra intersection (14S-13) SOF 1,700 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 Marina loc 2572 Imjin Road Widening to 4 lanes 1,650 0 1,650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,650 0 0 TAMC 1165 Planning, programming, and monitoring 927 0 309 309 309 0 0 0 927 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 50,236 9,959 11,659 28,309 309 0 0 26,000 8,677 6,650 6,393 2,005 511 Rail and Transit Projects: Monterey Co rail 1155 Capitol Corridor extension - Kick Start (TCRP #14) SOF 18,856 0 0 18,856 0 0 0 0 18,856 0 0 0 0 TAMC rail 1971 Coast Daylight/Caltrain track improvements (14S-22) 300 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 MST bus 2573 MST Buses 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 21,156 0 2,000 19,156 0 0 0 0 21,156 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Monterey Co loc 2296 Castroville bike/pedestrian overcrossing (12S-035) 6,637 6,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,637 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 6,637 6,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,637 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 78,029 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 156 57C 4-lane expressway, Castroville-Prunedale (RIP) -32,500 -4,500 0 -28,000 0 0 0 -26,000 0 0 -4,500 -2,000 0 Caltrans 156 57C 4-lane expressway, Castroville-Prunedale (RIP) 21,400 0 1,600 0 0 19,800 0 0 0 1,600 19,800 0 0 Caltrans 101 3300 South County Frontage Roads DELETE -5,000 0 -5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5,000 0 0 0 Monterey Co loc 1814 Rt 1 op improvements, Carmel, con (14S-13) -3,000 0 -3,000 0 0 0 0 0 -3,000 0 0 0 0 Monterey Co loc 1814 Rt 1 op improvements, Carmel, con SOF 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 Monterey Co loc 1813A Rt 68 Corral de Tierra intersection (14S-13) SOF -1,700 0 -1,700 0 0 0 0 0 -1,700 0 0 0 0 Monterey Co loc 1813A Rt 68 Corral de Tierra intersection SOF 1,700 0 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 Marina loc 2572 Imjin Road Widening to 4 lanes -1,650 0 -1,650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,650 0 0 Marina loc 2572 Imjin Road Widening to 4 lanes 1,650 0 0 0 1,650 0 0 0 0 0 1,650 0 0 TAMC 1165 Planning, programming, and monitoring -927 0 -309 -309 -309 0 0 0 -927 0 0 0 0 TAMC 1165 Planning, programming, and monitoring 740 0 185 185 185 185 0 0 740 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -16,287 -4,500 -9,874 -23,424 1,526 19,985 0 -26,000 -187 -3,400 15,300 -2,000 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -16,287 California Transportation Commission Monterey Page 39 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Monterey Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Ca!trans 156 57C 4-lane expressway, Castroville-Prunedale (RIP) 9,100 0 0 0 0 0 9,100 9,100 0 0 0 0 0 TAMC 1165 Planning, programming, and monitoring 187 0 0 0 0 0 187 0 185 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 24, 2016 PPNO 57C - Right of Way can be reprogrammed in a future STIP PPNO 1165 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2020 ($0) PPNO 1814 - Requesting state -only funding Balance of S' Total County Share, June 30, 2015 77,879 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 78,029 0 150 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -16,287 Monterey Page 40 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Napa Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: MTC 2130 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 Napa TPA 1003E Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 12 367J Jameson Canyon Rd landscaping Seg 3 (12S-29) Mar-15 1,075 1,075 0 0 0 0 0 2 710 0 221 2 140 Caltrans 29 2130Q Grayson Av traffic signal SOF Jun-15 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 12 376 Rt 12/29/221 Soscol intersection separation 6,300 6,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,800 1,500 0 0 Calistoga loc 2130M Rt 128/Petrified Forest Rd Intersection Improv. 580 105 50 425 0 0 0 50 425 0 105 0 0 American Cyn loc 2130D Devlin Rd & Vine Trail Extension SOF 1,962 297 0 1,665 0 0 0 0 1,665 297 0 0 0 American Cyn loc 2130E Eucalyptus Drive Extension 1,154 0 0 0 1,154 0 0 0 1,154 0 0 0 0 City of Napa loc 2130F Califomia Av Roundabouts (ext 6-15) Aug-16 431 431 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 0 0 0 0 City of Napa loc 2130F Califomia Av Roundabouts 1,070 0 1,070 0 0 0 0 0 1,070 0 0 0 0 Napa County loc 2130P Airport BI Rehabilitation 1,332 0 0 57 1,275 0 0 0 1,275 0 57 0 0 MTC 2130 Planning, programming, and monitoring 60 14 15 15 16 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 Napa TPA 1003E Planning, programming, and monitoring 344 69 110 165 0 0 0 0 344 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 14,691 8,674 1,245 2,327 2,445 0 0 483 7,086 5,097 1,883 2 140 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 376 0 376 0 0 0 0 0 376 0 0 0 0 Yountville loc 2130N Hopper Creek Pedestrian Path (Oak Circle -Mission) 500 0 100 400 0 0 0 0 400 0 100 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 876 0 476 400 0 0 0 0 776 0 100 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 15,567 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: City of Napa loc 2130F Califomia Av Roundabouts -1,070 0 -1,070 0 0 0 0 0 -1,070 0 0 0 0 City of Napa loc 2130F California Av Roundabouts 1,070 0 0 1,070 0 0 0 0 1,070 0 0 0 0 Calistoga loc 2130M Rt 128/Petrified Forest Rd Intersection Improv. -580 -105 -50 -425 0 0 0 -50 -425 0 -105 0 0 Calistoga loc 2130M Rt 128/Petrified Forest Rd Intersection Improv. 580 105 0 50 425 0 0 50 425 0 105 0 0 American Cyn loc 2130D Devlin Rd & Vine Trail Extension SOF -1,962 -297 0 -1,665 0 0 0 0 -1,665 -297 0 0 0 American Cyn loc 2130D Devlin Rd & Vine Trail Extension SOF 297 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 American Cyn loc 2130E Eucalyptus Drive Extension -1,154 0 0 0 -1,154 0 0 0 -1,154 0 0 0 0 American Cyn loc 2130E Eucalyptus Drive Extension 1,154 0 0 0r 0 0 1,154 0 1,154 0 0 0 0 Napa County loc 2130P Airport BI Rehabilitation DELETE -1,332 0 0 -57 -1,275 0 0 0 -1,275 0 -57 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -2,997 0 -1,120 -1,027 -2,004 0 1,154 0 -2,940 0 -57 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -376 0 -376 0 0 0 0 0 -376 0 0 0 0 Yountville loc 2130N Hopper Creek Pedestrian Path (Oak Circle -Mission) -500 0 -100 -400 0 0 0 0 -400 0 -100 0 0 Yountville loc 2130N Hopper Creek Pedestrian Path (Oak Circle -Mission) 500 0 0 0 100 400 0 0 400 0 100 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -376 0 -476 -400 100 400 0 0 -376 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -3,373 California Transportation Commission Napa Page 41 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Napa Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations American Cyn loc 2130E Eucalyptus Drive Extension incr 1,665 0 0 0 0 0 1,661 0 1,665 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 PPNO 2130E - Increase can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Napa Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 16,474 15,567 907 0 Proposed New Programming -3,373 California Transportation Commission Napa Page 42 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Nevada Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Nevada CTC OL83 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 81 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 49 4117 La Barr - McKnight widening 6,000 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 Nevada County loc 4119 Rt 49, Signal Preemption - three locations SOF 136 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 15 0 0 Nevada CTC OL83 Planning, programming, and monitoring 313 47 107 80 79 0 0 0 313 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 6,530 3,264 107 3,080 79 0 0 0 515 3,000 3,015 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 6,530 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 49 4117 La Barr - McKnight widening -6,000 -3,000 0 -3,000 0 0 0 0 0 -3,000 -3,000 0 0 Caltrans 49 4117 La Barr - McKnight widening 6,000 3,000 0 0 0 ja100 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 0 -3,000 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: RTIP adopted November 18, 2015 (no revisions) Balance of STIP County Share, Nevada Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 3,786 6,530 0 2,744 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Nevada Page 43 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Orange Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RAN Sup Con Sup Highway Projects: OCTA IOC 4956 Rt 405 Auxiliary lane southbound, University-Rt 133, env/PSE Aug-14 528 528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 528 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 4102A Route 5/74 interchange, landscaping (split at 4-12 vote) Jun-15 688 688 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 0 210 0 230 OCTA 2132 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 831 831 0 0 0 0 0 0 831 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 2678 HOV lane buffer removal/continuous access, Rt 57-Rt 91 3,600 0 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 3,100 0 0 0 500 Caltrans 5 2883A HOV lanes, Rt 55 - Rt 57 36,262 0 36,262 0 0 0 0 0 31,532 0 0 0 4,730 Caltrans 5 2655 Widening, Segment 1 (Rt 73-0so Parkway) 78,949 0 0 0 78,949 0 0 0 73,087 0 0 0 5,862 Caltrans 405 4956 Auxiliary lane southbound, University-Rt 133 13,612 0 114 0 13,498 0 0 0 11,192 0 0 114 2,306 OCTA IOC 4956 Rt 405 Auxiliary lane southbound, University-Rt 133, env/PSE 2,239 0 2,239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,239 0 0 Brea loc 3834 Rt 57 Lambert Rd I/C Improvements 22,100 0 0 0 22,100 0 0 0 22,100 0 0 0 0 OCTA 2132 Planning, programming, and monitoring 4,862 0 1,899 1,482 1,481 0 0 0 4,862 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 163,671 2,047 44,114 1,482 116,028 0 0 0 146,952 528 2,449 114 13628 Rail and Transit Projects: Orange rail 9657 Orange Transportation Center Parking Structure 13,762 13,762 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,762 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 13,762 13,762 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,762 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 177,433 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 5 2655 Widening, Segment 1 (Rt 73-0so Parkway) -78,949 0 0 0-78,949 0 0 0-73,087 0 0 0 -5,862 Caltrans 5 2655 Widening, Segment 1 (Rt 73-0so Parkway) 77,930 0 0 0 0 0 77,931 0 73,087 0 0 0 4,843 Caltrans 5 2883A HOV lanes, Rt 55 - Rt 57 -36,262 0 -36,262 0 0 0 0 0 -31,532 0 0 0 -4,730 Caltrans 5 2883A HOV lanes, Rt 55 - Rt 57 28,949 0 0 0 28,949 0 0 0 26,049 0 0 0 2,900 Caltrans 5 2678 HOV lane buffer removal/continuous access, Rt 57-Rt 91 DELETE -3,600 0 -3,600 0 0 0 0 0 -3,100 0 0 0 -500 Brea loc 3834 Rt 57 Lambert Rd I/C Improvements -22,100 0 0 0 -22,100 0 0 0 -22,100 0 0 0 0 Brea loc 3834 Rt 57 Lambert Rd I/C Improvements 9,000 0 0 0 0 9,000 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 405 4956 Auxiliary lane southbound, University-Rt 133 -13,612 0 -114 0 -13,498 0 0 0 -11,192 0 0 -114 -2,306 OCTA IOC 4956 Rt 405 Auxiliary lane southbound, University-Rt 133, env/PSE -2,239 0 -2,239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,239 0 0 Caltrans 405 4956 Auxiliary lane southbound, University-Rt 133, env/PSE 1,800 0 1,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,800 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -39,083 0 -40,415 0 -85,598 9,000 77,930 9,000 -41,875 0 439 -114 -5,655 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -39,083 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations SCRRA rail San Juan Creek Bridge Replacement NEW 5,700 0 0 5,700 0 0 0 0 5,700 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 14, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Orange Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 180,599 177,433 3,166 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -39,083 Orange Page 44 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Placer TPA Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: Placer TPA OL11 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 142 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 Placer TPA OL11 Planning, programming, and monitoring 661 0 221 220 220 0 0 0 661 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 803 142 221 220 220 0 0 0 803 0 0 0 0 Rail and Transit Proiects: Caltrans rail 9879 Sac -Roseville track improvements (RIP)(10S-034) 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 3,803 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Placer TPA OL11 Planning, programming, and monitoring -661 0 -221 -220 -220 0 0 0 -661 0 0 0 0 Placer TPA OL11 Planning, programming, and monitoring 661 0 166 165 165 165 0 0 661 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 -55 -55 -55 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rail and Transit Project Proposals: Caltrans rail 9879 Sac -Roseville track improvements (10S-034) DELETE -3,000 0 0 -3,000 0 0 0 0 -3,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail and Transit Proposals -3,000 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -3,000 Notes: RTIP adopted October 28, 2015 (no revisions) Balance of STIP County Share, Placer TPA Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn (34,409) 3,803 0 38.212 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -3,000 Placer TPA Page 45 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Plumas Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Plumas CTC 2057 Planning, programming, and monitoring May-15 58 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 Portola loc 2480 County Rd A15, Colorado -Commercial, recon SOF Jun-15 2,880 2,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,880 0 0 0 0 Ca!trans 89 3355 Greenville, Hideaway Rd -Mill St, realign, imprvs (14S-17) 5,367 5,367 0 0 0 0 0 289 3,135 350 618 375 600 Portola loc 2547 North Loop (Phase 1) SOF 2,581 0 140 206 2,235 0 0 0 2,235 140 206 0 0 Plumas CTC loc 2548 Graeagle-Johnsonville Road Reconstruction 2,327 0 200 150 1,977 0 0 50 1,977 200 100 0 0 Plumas CTC 2057 Planning, programming, and monitoring 226 34 77 57 58 0 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 13,439 8,339 417 413 4,270 0 0 339 10,511 690 924 375 600 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 13,439 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Portola loc 2547 North Loop (Phase 1) SOF -2,581 0 -140 -206 -2,235 0 0 0 -2,235 -140 -206 0 0 Portola loc 2547 North Loop (Phase 1) SOF 346 0 0 0 0 140 206 0 0 140 206 0 0 Plumas CTC loc 2548 Graeagle-Johnsonville Road Reconstruction -2,327 0 -200 -150 -1,977 0 0 -50 -1,977 -200 -100 0 0 Plumas CTC loc 2548 Graeagle-Johnsonville Road Reconstruction 400 0 0 0 0 250 150 50 0 200 150 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -4,162 0 -340 -356 -4,212 390 356 0 -4,212 0 50 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -4,162 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 29, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Plumas Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 15,620 13,439 2,181 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -4,162 Plumas Page 46 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Riverside Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Riverside Co. loc 53A Rt 10, Jefferson St WC, widen OC (construction) Aug-14 33,310 33,310 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,310 0 0 0 0 RCTC 9803 Planning, programming, and monitoring May-15 664 664 0 0 0 0 0 0 664 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) 41,545 0 0 41,545 0 0 0 0 24,245 0 0 0 17,300 Caltrans 60 46J Truck Climb/Descend Ln w/shoulders(SHOPP)(14S-27) 31,555 0 31,555 0 0 0 0 0 25,755 0 0 0 5,800 RCTC loc 46J Rt 60, Truck Lanes w/shoulders (SHOPP) (14S-27) (ext 6-15) Mar-16 550 550 0 0 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 91 71E B Canyon Wildlife Crossing Corridor (14S-04) 1,480 1,480 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 500 800 100 0 RCTC loc 108T Rt 215 Southbound Connector (SHOPP) 8,975 0 10 8,965 0 0 0 10 8,965 0 0 0 0 RCTC 9803 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,663 664 663 668 668 0 0 0 2,663 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 120,742 36,668 32,228 51,178 668 0 0 640 95,602 500 800 100 23100 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: CVAG loc 1019 CV Link, Palm Springs -Coachella, multiuse path (Ph1) 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 122,742 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) -41,545 0 0 -41,545 0 0 0 0 -24,245 0 0 0 -17,300 Caltrans 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) 15,346 0 0 0 0 15,346 0 0 9,346 0 0 0 6,000 RCTC loc 46J Rt 60, Truck Lanes w/shoulders (SHOPP) (14S-27) (ext 6-15) Mar-16 -550 -550 0 0 0 0 0 -550 0 0 0 0 0 RCTC loc 46J Rt 60, Truck Lanes w/shoulders R/W (SHOPP) SOF 550 0 550 0 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 60 46J Truck Climb/Descend Ln w/shoulders(SHOPP)(14S-27) -31,555 0-31,555 0 0 0 0 0-25,755 0 0 0 -5,800 Caltrans 60 46J Truck Climb/Descend Ln w/shoulders Con (SHOPP) 31,555 0 0 31,555 0 0 0 0 25,755 0 0 0 5,800 RCTC loc 108T Rt 215 Southbound Connector (SHOPP) DELETE -8,975 0 -10 -8,965 0 0 0 -10 -8,965 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -35,174 -550 -31,015 -18,955 0 15,346 0 -10 -23,864 0 0 0 -11,300 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: CVAG loc 1019 CV Link, Palm Springs -Coachella, multiuse path (Ph1) -2,000 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 CVAG loc 1019 CV Link, Palm Springs -Coachella, multiuse path (Ph1) 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 0 0 -2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -35,174 Caltrans Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations 15 21K French Valley Parkway interchange (14S-26) 2,920 0 0 0 0 2,920 0 0 2,920 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 9, 2016 PPNO 21K - Increase from original proposal not recommended California Transportation Commission Riverside Page 47 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Riverside Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Balance of STIP County Share, Riverside Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 125,842 122,742 3,100 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -35,174 Riverside Page 48 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Sacramento Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: SACOG OL30 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 609 609 0 0 0 0 0 0 609 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 5835 HOV lanes/soundwalls, Rt 50-Laguna Blvd (Ph 1) 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 1,150 0 0 0 850 0 Caltrans 51 6913 Ramp meters, Sac Co, Rtes 51, 80, 99 various locs 11,500 0 1,500 200 9,800 0 0 28 8,590 1,500 0 172 1,210 Caltrans 51 6405 NB Transition Lane, E St-Elvas, close E St onramp 900 0 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 1666 Grant Line Rd, Waterman -Mosher, widen, signals 3,800 0 3,800 0 0 0 0 0 3,800 0 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 1667 ITS Master Plan -Phase 4 Implementation 2,312 0 0 2,312 0 0 0 0 2,312 0 0 0 0 Folsom loc 1668 Green Valley Rd, E. Natoma-Sophia, widen, bike 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 Rancho Cordova loc 1670 Zinfandel Dr, Olson Dr -White Rock Rd, improvements 700 0 0 164 536 0 0 0 0 164 536 0 0 Sacramento loc 1671 14th Avenue extension, Power Inn -Florin Perkins 4,008 0 0 0 4,008 0 0 0 4,008 0 0 0 0 Sac County loc 1672 Hazel Av, Sunset -Madison, widen, signals 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 Sac County loc 1673 Old Town Florin streetscape improvements, Phase 2 3,328 0 0 0 3,328 0 0 0 3,328 0 0 0 0 SACOG OL30 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,466 0 822 822 822 0 0 0 2,466 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 41,623 609 9,022 3,498 28,494 0 0 1,178 35,113 2,564 536 1,022 1210 Rail and Transit Projects: Sac RT bus 5988 39 CNG replacement buses, spare parts 18,500 0 9,700 5,000 3,800 0 0 0 18,500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 18,500 0 9,700 5,000 3,800 0 0 0 18,500 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Sac County loc 6579 Fair Oaks Blvd improvs, Landis -Eagle (Ph 2)(12S-042) Jun-15 1,600 1,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 0 0 0 0 Galt loc 6576 C Street/Central Galt Complete Streets 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 5990 Laguna Creek trail - North Camden Spur 500 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 4,100 3,600 500 0 0 0 0 0 4,100 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 64,223 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 5 5835 HOV lanes/soundwalls, Rt 50-Laguna Blvd (Ph 1) DELETE -2,000 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 -1,150 0 0 0 -850 0 Caltrans 51 6913 Ramp meters, Sac Co, Rtes 51, 80, 99 various locs DELETE -11,500 0 -1,500 -200 -9,800 0 0 -28 -8,590 -1,500 0 -172 -1,210 Caltrans 51 6405 NB Transition Lane, E St-Elvas, close E St onramp DELETE -900 0 -900 0 0 0 0 0 0 -900 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 1666 Grant Line Rd, Waterman -Mosher, widen, signals -3,800 0 -3,800 0 0 0 0 0 -3,800 0 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 1666 Grant Line Rd, Waterman -Mosher, widen, signals 3,800 Or 0 3,800 0 0 0 0 3,800 0 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 1667 ITS Master Plan -Phase 4 Implementation -2,312 0 0 -2,312 0 0 0 0 -2,312 0 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 1667 ITS Master Plan -Phase 4 Implementation 2,312 0 0 0 0 2,312 0 0 2,312 0 0 0 0 Rancho Cordova loc 1670 Zinfandel Dr, Olson Dr -White Rock Rd, improvements -700 0 0 -164 -536 0 0 0 0 -164 -536 0 0 Rancho Cordova loc 1670 Zinfandel Complex Improvements incr 1,869 O` 0 1,869 0 0 0 0 1,869 0 0 0 0 Sacramento loc 1671 14th Avenue extension, Power Inn -Florin Perkins -4,008 0 0 0 -4,008 0 0 0 -4,008 0 0 0 0 Sacramento loc 1671 14th Avenue extension, Power Inn -Florin Perkins 4,008 0 0 0 0 0 4,008 0 4,008 0 0 0 0 Sac County loc 1672 Hazel Av, Sunset -Madison, widen, signals -7,000 0 0 0 -7,000 0 0 0 -7,000 0 0 0 0 Sac County loc 1672 Hazel Av, Sunset -Madison, widen, signals 7,000 0 0 0 0; 0 7,000 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -13,231 0 -8,200 2,993 -21,344 2,312 11,008 -1,178 -6,721 -2,564 -536 -1,022 -1,210 California Transportation Commission Sacramento Page 49 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Sacramento Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Rail and Transit Project Proposals: Sac RT bus 5988 39 CNG replacement buses, spare parts DELETE -18,500 0 -9,700 -5,000 -3,800 0 0 0 -18,500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail and Transit Proposals -18,500 0 -9,700 -5,000 -3,800 0 0 0 -18,500 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Elk Grove loc 5990 Laguna Creek trail - North Camden Spur -500 0 -500 0 0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 0 Elk Grove loc 5990 Laguna Creek trail - North Camden Spur 500 0 Eir 0 50i 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 0 -500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -31,731 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Cap SE Conn JPA loc Capital Southeast Connector, Seg D3 NEW 7,500 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 Sac County loc Power Inn Road Improvements NEW 4,000 0 235 615 0 0 3,150 460 3,150 235 155 0 0 Ca!trans 51 6409 Corridor Improvements, J St - Arden Way NEW 12,400 0 12,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,400 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 PPNO 1670 - Increase is in first two years of the STIP New projects can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Sacramento Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 63,409 64,223 0 814 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -31,731 Sacramento Page 50 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Benito Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup Con sup Highway Projects: San Benito COG 2043 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 156 297 4-lane expressway, San Juan Bautista (RIP) 9,639 0 9,639 0 0 0 0 0 9,639 0 0 0 0 San Benito COG 2043 Planning, programming, and monitoring 165 0 55 55 55 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 9,849 45 9,694 55 55 0 0 0 9,849 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 9,849 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Proiect Proposals: Caltrans 156 297 4-lane expressway, San Juan Bautista (RIP) -9,639 0 -9,639 0 0 0 0 0 -9,639 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 156 297 4-lane expressway, San Juan Bautista (RIP) 9,639 0 0 0 0 9,639 0 0 9,639 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 -9,639 0 0 9,639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 26, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, San Benito Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 5,015 9,849 0 4,834 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 San Benito Page 51 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Bernardino Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: Caltrans 15 174L NB lane, Victorville-Barstow, ph2(RIP)(ext 6-14)(R/W Jun'15) Dec-14 Dec-14 27,262 27,262 0 0 0 0 0 3,607 23,655 0 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 260J Rt 395 (Hesperia,Victorville,Adelanto) Interim Widening Mar-15 5,550 5,550 0 0 0 0 0 5,550 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 10 134K HOV lanes, Haven Ave -Ford St 11,930 0 0 11,930 0 0 0 11,930 0 0 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 134K Rt 10 HOV lanes, Haven Ave -Ford St 27,815 0 0 27,815 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,815 0 0 Caltrans 215 243K Barton interchange reconstruction 22,611 0 22,611 0 0 0 0 0 14,913 0 0 0 7,698 Caltrans 395 260B Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 195N Rt 210, Highland Ave -San Bernardino Ave, widen 25,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 242L Rt 215 Mt Vemon/Washington Street 1/C Improvement 38,523 0 0 0 38,523 0 0 0 38,523 0 0 0 0 SANBAG 9811 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 1,200 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 0 SANBAG 9811 Planning, programming, and monitoring 3,810 0 1,270 1,270 1,270 0 0 0 3,810 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 167,701 38,012 23,881 66,015 39,793 0 0 21,087 107,101 4,000 27,815 0 7698 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 167,701 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 10 134K HOV lanes, Haven Ave -Ford St -11,930 0 0-11,930 0 0 0-11,930 0 0 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 134K Rt 10 HOV lanes, Haven Ave -Ford St -27,815 0 0 -27,815 0 0 0 0 0 0 -27,815 0 0 SANBAG loc 134K 1-10 Express Lanes, Phase 1 39,745 0 0 0 0ii. 0 39,745 0 39,745 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 215 243K Barton interchange reconstruction DELETE -22,611 0 -22,611 0 0 0 0 0 -14,913 0 0 0 -7,698 SANBAG loc 242L Rt 215 Mt Vemon/Washington Street 1/C Improvement DELETE -38,523 0 0 0 -38,523 0 0 0 -38,523 0 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 195N Rt 210, Highland Ave -San Bernardino Ave, widen -25,000 0 0 -25,000 0 0 0 0 -25,000 0 0 0 0 SANBAG loc 195N Rt 210 Lane addition, Highland Ave to I-10 25,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) -4,000 -4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 395 260B Rt 15-Farmington, widen (RIP) close 1,363 1,363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,363 0 0 0 SANBAG 9811 Planning, programming, and monitoring -3,810 0 -1,270 -1,270 -1,270 0 0 0 -3,810 0 0 0 0 SANBAG 9811 Planning, programming, and monitoring 3,810 0 1,270 1,270 1,270E- 0 0 0 3,810 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -63,771 -2,637 -22,611 -39,745 -38,523 0 39,745 -11,930 -13,691 -2,637 -27,815 0 -7,698 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -63,771 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations SANBAG loc 134K 1-10 Express Lanes, Phase 1 25,453 0 0 0 0 0 25,453 0 25,453 0 0 0 0 SANBAG 9811 Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,119 0 0 0 0 1,119 0 0 1,119 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 3, 2016 PPNO 134K - Increases can be programmed in a future STIP PPNO 195N - Name and scope change New projects can be programmed in a future STIP California Transportation Commission San Bernardino Page 52 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Bernardino Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Balance of STIP County Share, San Bernardino Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 167,610 167,701 0 91 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -63,771 San Bernardino Page 53 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Diego Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RAN sup Con Sup Highway Projects: SANDAG 7402 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 854 854 0 0 0 0 0 0 854 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 615 Del Mar -Camp Pendleton, widen, env 9,730 9,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,730 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 615C HOV extension, San Elijo Lagoon Bridge replacement 99,382 99,382 0 0 0 0 0 0 81,382 0 0 0 18,000 Caltrans 5 615B Soundwalls, Manchester Av - Rt 78 36,000 0 36,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,200 0 0 0 5,800 Caltrans 5 615A HOV extension, Manchester Av - Rt 78 49,000 0 0 49,000 0 0 0 0 33,000 0 0 0 16,000 SANDAG 7402 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 854 854 0 0 0 0 0 0 854 0 0 0 0 SANDAG 7402 Planning, programming, and monitoring 3,315 0 1,105 1,105 1,105 0 0 0 3,315 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 199,135 110,820 37,105 50,105 1,105 0 0 0 149,605 9,730 0 0 39800 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: SANDAG loc 7421 W Inland Rail Trail, Phases IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB (ext 6-15) Feb-17 18,437 18,437 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,437 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 18,437 18,437 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,437 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 217,572 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 5 615C HOV extension, San Elijo Lagoon Bridge replacement combine -99,382 -99,382 0 0 0 0 0 0 -81,382 0 0 0 -18,000 Caltrans 5 615B Soundwalls, Manchester Av - Rt 78 combine -36,000 0 -36,000 0 0 0 0 0 -30,200 0 0 0 -5,800 Caltrans 5 615A HOV extension, Manchester Av - Rt 78 combine -49,000 0 0 -49,000 0 0 0 0 -33,000 0 0 0 -16,000 Caltrans 5 615C HOV extension, Phase 1 (CMGC) 143,382 99,382 0 0 0 0 44,000 0 125,382 0 0 0 18,000 SANDAG 7402 Planning, programming, and monitoring -3,315 0 -1,105 -1,105 -1,105 0 0 0 -3,315 0 0 0 0 SANDAG 7402 Planning, programming, and monitoring 3,315 0 1,105 1,105 1,105 0 0 0 3,315 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -41,000 0 -36,000 -49,000 0 0 44,000 0 -19,200 0 0 0 -21,800 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -41,000 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations SANDAG 7402 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,210 0 0 0 0 1,105 1,105 0 2,210 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 26, 2016 PPNO 615C - combining 615A, B and C into one CMGC project under 615C Balance of STIP County Share, San Diego Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 213,758 217,572 0 3,814 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -41,000 San Diego Page 54 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Francisco Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: SFCTA 2007 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 161 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 MTC 2131 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 62 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 SFCTA 2007 Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,114 0 447 667 0 0 0 0 1,114 0 0 0 0 MTC 2131 Planning, programming, and monitoring 271 64 67 69 71 0 0 0 271 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 1,608 287 514 736 71 0 0 0 1,608 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 1,548 0 1,548 0 0 0 0 0 1,548 0 0 0 0 SFDPW loc 612F Chinatown Broadway Complete Streets, Ph 4 1,910 0 1,910 0 0 0 0 0 1,910 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 3,458 0 3,458 0 0 0 0 0 3,458 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 5,066 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -1,548 0 -1,548 0 0 0 0 0 -1,548 0 0 0 0 SFDPW loc 612F Chinatown Broadway Complete Streets, Ph 4 DELETE -1,910 0 -1,910 0 0 0 0 0 -1,910 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -3,458 0 -3,458 0 0 0 0 0 -3,458 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -3,458 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations SFDPW loc 1 Lombard Street Vision Zero NEW 1,910 0 1,910 0 0 0 0 0 1,910 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adoted March 23, 2016 New project can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, San Francisco Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 4,111 5,066 0 955 Proposed New Programming -3,458 California Transportation Commission San Francisco Page 55 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Joaquin Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: SJCOG 7952 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 SJCOG 7952 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 7101 Carpentaria Crk-Sycamore Crk, widen (RIP)(in SB Co.) 8,853 0 0 0 8,853 0 0 8,853 0 0 0 0 0 Lodi loc 3045 Rt 99/Tumer Rd WC operational improvements 3,061 0 0 3,061 0 0 0 0 3,061 0 0 0 0 Manteca loc 3046 Rt 120/McKinley Avenue, new interchange 12,300 0 0 0 12,300 0 0 0 12,300 0 0 0 0 Ripon loc 6627 Stockton Ave, 2nd St -Doak Blvd, widen (14S-29) 1,000 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 Tracy loc 6629 MacArthur Dr., widening & reconstruction 3,194 3,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,194 0 0 0 0 SJCOG 7952 Planning, programming, and monitoring 600 0 200 200 200 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 29,408 3,594 1,200 3,261 21,353 0 0 8,853 20,555 0 0 0 0 Rail and Transit Projects: Lodi gsep 6630 Hamey Lane grade separation/UPRR Jun-15 12,100 0 12,100 0 0 0 0 0 12,100 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 12,100 0 12,100 0 0 0 0 0 12,100 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 41,508 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Lodi loc 3045 Rt 99/Tumer Rd WC operational improvements DELETE -3,061 0 0 -3,061 0 0 0 0 -3,061 0 0 0 0 Ripon loc 6627 Stockton Ave, 2nd St -Doak Blvd, widen (14S-29) DELETE -1,000 0 -1,000 0 0 0 0 0 -1,000 0 0 0 0 Manteca loc 3046 Rt 120/McKinley Avenue, new interchange -12,300 0 0 0-12,300 0 0 0-12,300 0 0 0 0 Manteca loc 3046 Rt 120/McKinley Avenue, new interchange 12,300 0 0 0 0 12,300 0 0 12,300 0 0 0 0 Tracy loc 6629 MacArthur Dr., widening & reconstruction -3,194 -3,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3,194 0 0 0 0 Tracy loc 6629 MacArthur Dr., widening & reconstruction 3,194 0 3,194 0 0 0 0 0 3,194 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 7101 Carpentaria Crk-Sycamore Crk, widen (RIP)(in SB Co.) DELETE -8,853 0 0 0 -8,853 0 0 -8,853 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -12,914 -3,194 2,194 -3,061 -21,153 12,300 0 -8,853 -4,061 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -12,914 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Caltrans 101 7101 Carpenteria Crk-Sycamore Crk, widen (RIP)(in SB Co.) 8,853 0 0 0 8,853 0 0 0 8,853 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 25, 2016 PPNO 7101 - Payback to SB can be in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, San Joaquin Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 41,508 41,508 0 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -12,914 San Joaquin Page 56 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Luis Obispo Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Paso Robles loc 2528 Rt 46/Union Road Intersection improvements Jun-15 450 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 SLOCOG 942 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 218 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 A4459 Santa Maria River Bridge widening (RIP) (CMIA) (CCA 6-15) Jun-15 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 Caltrans 46 226H Corridor Improvements (Whitley 26)(RIP) 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 3700 S SLO Co op imprvs(Oak Park/Halcyon-SB Aux In) 654 654 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 0 0 0 Paso Robles Ioc 2559 Rt 101/Rt46W WC improvements, Ph 3 roundabouts 1,100 0 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,100 0 0 Arroyo Grande Ioc 4856B Rt 101 Brisco Rd I/C improvements/Aux Lane 6,624 0 6,624 0 0 0 0 0 6,624 0 0 0 0 SLO County Ioc 2071 Price Canyon Rd, Ormonde-Rt 227, widen (ext 5-15) Jun-16 3,364 3,364 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,364 0 0 0 0 SLOCOG 942 Planning, programming, and monitoring 315 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 17,731 9,692 8,039 0 0 0 0 2 15,521 1,104 1,100 4 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Proiects: Pismo Beach Ioc 2302 Shell Beach Road Multiuse Path, Ph I (ext 6-14) Feb-16 600 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 600 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 18,331 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Arroyo Grande Ioc 4856B Rt 101 Brisco Rd I/C improvements/Aux Lane -6,624 0 -6,624 0 0 0 0 0 -6,624 0 0 0 0 Arroyo Grande Ioc 4856B Rt 101 Brisco Rd I/C improvements/Aux Lane 6,624 0 0 0 0 0 6,624 0 6,624 0 0 0 0 Paso Robles Ioc 2559 Rt 101/Rt46W WC improvements, Ph 3 roundabouts DELETE -1,100 0 -1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,100 0 0 SLOCOG 942 Planning, programming, and monitoring -315 0 -315 0 0 0 0 0 -315 0 0 0 0 SLOCOG 942 Planning, programming, and monitoring 315 0 158 157 0 0 0 0 440 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,100 0 -7,881 157 0 0 6,624 0 125 0 -1,100 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,100 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 2, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, San Luis Obispo Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 24,988 18,331 6,657 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,100 San Luis Obispo Page 57 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Mateo Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: MTC 2140 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 64 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 SM C/CAG 2140A Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 355 355 0 0 0 0 0 0 355 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 92 668D Rt 101 interchange improvements 23,839 0 2,411 3,217 18,211 0 0 0 18,211 2,411 3,217 0 0 Caltrans 101 690A Willow Rd interchange reconstructn, ph1 (14S-21) 28,951 11,552 0 17,399 0 0 0 2,217 13,719 3,534 4,946 855 3,680 SMCTA loc 632C Rt 1 °p an! improvs, Pacifica, Calera Pkwy, Ph1(14S-20) 6,900 0 6,900 0 0 0 0 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 San Mateo loc 668A Rt 92/Rt 82 interchange improvements 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 SM C/CAG loc 2140E Countywide ITS improvements 4,298 0 800 3,498 0 0 0 0 3,498 300 500 0 0 MTC 2140 Planning, programming, and monitoring 281 67 69 71 74 0 0 0 281 0 0 0 0 SM C/CAG 2140A Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,303 165 462 338 338 0 0 0 1,303 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 70,991 12,203 15,642 24,523 18,623 0 0 9,117 42,431 6,245 8,663 855 3680 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 1,598 0 1,598 0 0 0 0 0 1,598 0 0 0 0 SoSan Francisco loc 648F El Camino Real Grand Blvd Initiative 1,991 0 0 1,991 0 0 0 0 1,991 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 3,589 0 1,598 1,991 0 0 0 0 3,589 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 74,580 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Proiect Proposals: Caltrans 92 668D Rt 101 interchange improvements -23,839 0 -2,411 -3,217 -18,211 0 0 0 -18,211 -2,411 -3,217 0 0 Caltrans 92 668D Rt 101 interchange improvements 5,628 0 0 0 0 2,411 3,217 0 0 2,411 3,217 0 0 Caltrans 101 690A Willow Rd interchange reconstructn, ph1 (14S-21) -28,951 -11,552 0 -17,399 0 0 0 -2,217 -13,719 -3,534 -4,946 -855 -3,680 Caltrans 101 690A Willow Rd interchange reconstructn, ph1 (14S-21) 19,552 11,552 ... 0 8,000 0 0 0 2,217 0 3,534 4,946 855 8,000 SMCTA loc 632C Rt 1 °p an! improvs, Pacifica, Calera Pkwy, Ph1(14S-20) -6,900 0 -6,900 0 0 0 0 -6,900 0 0 0 0 0 SMCTA loc 632C Rt 1 °p an! improvs, Pacifica, Calera Pkwy, Ph1(14S-20) 6,900 0 0 0 6,900 0 0 6,900 0 0 0 0 0 SM C/CAG loc 2140E Countywide ITS improvements -4,298 0 -800 -3,498 0 0 0 0 -3,498 -300 -500 0 0 SM C/CAG loc 2140E Countywide ITS improvements 4,298 0 0 800 3,498 0 0 0 3,498 300 500 0 0 San Mateo loc 668A Rt 92/Rt 82 interchange improvements -5,000 0 -5,000 0 0 0 0 0 -5,000 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 92 668A Rt 82 interchange improvements 5,000 0 M6 5,000 0 0 0 Or- 2,000 0 0 0 3,000 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -27,610 0 -15,111 -10,314 -7,813 2,411 3,217 0 -34,930 0 0 0 7,320 Bicycle and Pedestrian Proiect Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -1,598 0 -1,598 0 0 0 0 0 -1,598 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -1,598 0 -1,598 0 0 0 0 0 -1,598 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -29,208 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations SM C/CAG loc Rt 101 HOV/HOT lanes (SCL line to 1-380) NEW 9,399 0 3,000 6,399 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 6,399 0 0 California Transportation Commission San Mateo Page 58 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) San Mateo Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior Project Totals by Fiscal Year 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Project Totals by Component Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup Con Sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 New project can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, San Mateo Total County Share, June 30, 2015 74,445 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 74,580 Unprogrammed Share Balance 0 Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 135 Proposed New Programming-29,208 California Transportation Commission San Mateo Page 59 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Santa Barbara Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: SBCAG 1914 Planning, programming, and monitoring Aug-14 350 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 246 6400 E of Lompoc, Cebada Cnyn-Hapgood, widen (12S-025) Oct-14 12,734 12,734 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 5,194 3,075 495 3,470 Caltrans 101 A4459 Santa Maria River Bridge widening (RIP) (CMIA) (CCA 6-15) Jun-15 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 Caltrans 246 6400Y E of Lompoc, widen, landscaping (split at 10-14 vote) 732 342 0 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 342 0 390 Caltrans 101 482 Via Real frontage rd gap 4,996 4,996 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,507 832 747 0 910 Caltrans 101 482 Carpenteria Crk-Linden, I/C improvements (96 grf) 67,697 67,697 0 0 0 0 0 5,394 60,484 116 933 0 770 Caltrans 101 7101 Carpenteria Crk-Sycamore Crk, widen (RIP) 24,072 22,035 0 0 2,037 0 0 0 0 9,450 14,622 0 0 Goleta loc 4611 Rt 217, Fowler and Ekwill St extensions (14S-12) 11,372 0 11,372 0 0 0 0 0 11,372 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara loc 820 Las Positas & Cliff Dr intersection improvs 750 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 SBCAG 1914 Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,214 105 640 235 234 0 0 0 1,214 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 123,923 109,015 12,012 625 2,271 0 0 5,896 76,677 15,592 19,719 499 5,540 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Santa Barbara loc 1834B Cabrillo Blvd Pedestrian Improvements (12S-045) Jun-15 1,477 1,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,477 0 0 0 Goleta loc 1840A Rt 101/Cathedral Oaks, landscaping (106-044)(ext 6-15) Jun-16 325 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 1,802 1,802 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 1,477 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 125,725 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 101 7101 Carpenteria Crk-Sycamore Crk, widen (RIP) -24,072 -22,035 0 0 -2,037 0 0 0 0 -9,450 -14,622 0 0 Caltrans 101 7101 Carpenteria Crk-Sycamore Crk, widen (RIP) 24,072 22,035 0 0 0 2,037 0 1,500 2,037 9,450 10,535 550 0 Goleta loc 4611 Rt 217, Fowler and Ekwill St extensions (14S-12) -11,372 0 -11,372 0 0 0 0 0 -11,372 0 0 0 0 Goleta loc 4611 Rt 217, Fowler and Ekwill St extensions (14S-12) 9,272 0 Or 0 0 9,272 0 0 9,272 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 246 6400Y E of Lompoc, widen, landscaping (split at 10-14 vote) -732 -342 0 -390 0 0 0 0 0 0 -342 0 -390 Caltrans 246 6400Y E of Lompoc, widen, landscaping (split at 10-14 vote) incr 870 342 0 528 0 0 0 0 0 0 342 0 528 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,962 0 -11,372 138 -2,037 11,309 0 1,500 -63 0 -4,087 550 138 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,962 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted November 19, 2015 (no revisions) PPNO 7101 - funding from deleted San Joaquin shares backfilled with local funds PPNO 4611 - project segmented and this segment remains fully funded PPNO 6400Y - Required mitigation Balance of STIP County Share, Santa Barbara Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 124,035 125,725 0 1.690 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1.962 Santa Barbara Page 60 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Santa Clara Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: MTC 2144 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 143 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 SCVTA 2255 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 696 696 0 0 0 0 0 0 696 0 0 0 0 SCVTA loc 521C Rt 680 Soundwall, Capitol - Mueller 4,456 95 408 94 3,859 0 0 94 3,859 95 408 0 0 MTC 2144 Planning, programming, and monitoring 621 147 153 158 163 0 0 0 621 0 0 0 0 SCVTA 2255 Planning, programming, and monitoring 3,248 628 1,053 784 783 0 0 0 3,248 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 9,164 1,709 1,614 1,036 4,805 0 0 94 8,567 95 408 0 0 Rail and Transit Projects: SCVTA rail 2147E BART Extension, Berryessa - Santa Clara 14,672 0 0 14,672 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,672 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 14,672 0 0 14,672 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,672 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: San Jose loc 9035L Park Av multimodal improvements, bike & ped Mar-15 1,456 1,456 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,456 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 3,632 0 3,632 0 0 0 0 0 3,632 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto loc 2015D Rt 101/Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge (14S-05) 4,350 0 4,350 0 0 0 0 0 4,350 0 0 0 0 San Jose loc 9035M St John St multimodal imprvmnts, bike & ped (ext 5-15) Feb-17 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 10,938 2,956 7,982 0 0 0 0 0 10,938 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 34,774 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: SCVTA loc 521 C Rt 680 Soundwall, Capitol - Mueller -4,456 -95 -408 -94 -3,859 0 0 -94 -3,859 -95 -408 0 0 SCVTA loc 521 C Rt 680 Soundwall, Capitol - Mueller 4,456 95 0 731 355 3,275 0 355 3,275 95 731 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 -408 637 -3,504 3,275 0 261 -584 0 323 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Palo Alto loc 2015D Rt 101/Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge (14S-05) DELETE -4,350 0 -4,350 0 0 0 0 0 -4,350 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -3,632 0 -3,632 0 0 0 0 0 -3,632 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -7,982 0 -7,982 0 0 0 0 0 -7,982 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -7,982 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Santa Clara Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 34,774 34,774 0 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -7,982 Santa Clara Page 61 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Santa Cruz Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup con sup Highway Projects: SCCRTC tdm 923 Rt 1 Freeway Service Patrol SOF Jun-15 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Co. loc 2368 Redwood Lodge Rd PM 1.65 storm damage repair SOF SB 184 Jun-15 850 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 0 0 0 Capitola loc 2554 Bay Av/Capitola Av Roundabout Modification SB 184 Jun-15 59 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 SCCRTC 921 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 96 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz loc 4658 Rt 1/9 Intersection modifications (14S-23) 1,329 0 1,329 0 0 0 0 0 1,329 0 0 0 0 SCCRTC loc 73A Rt1, 41st-Soguel Aux Lns,bike/ped bridge(14S-23) 4,000 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 1,430 0 0 2,570 0 0 Watsonville loc 413 Rt 1 Harkins Slough Rd interchange (12S-037) 7,340 0 462 6,878 0 0 0 462 6,878 0 0 0 0 SCCRTC tdm 923 Rt 1 Freeway Service Patrol SOF 150 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2366 Airport Blvd at Freedom Blvd modifications 850 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2555 Airport BI Improvements 1,195 0 1,195 0 0 0 0 0 1,195 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Co. loc 2557 Casserly Rd Bridge Replacement 125 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Co. loc 2558 Freedom BI Cape Seal 800 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 SCCRTC 921 Planning, programming, and monitoring SOF 524 0 175 175 174 0 0 0 524 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 17,468 2,805 7,436 7,053 174 0 0 1,892 12,947 0 2,629 0 0 Rail and Transit Projects: SCMTD bus 2553 ParaCruz Van Replacement Aug-14 345 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Rail & Transit Projects 345 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: SCCRTC loc 1968 Rt 1 Mar Vista bike/ped overcrossing 6,564 500 1,635 4,429 0 0 0 1,060 4,429 500 575 0 0 Santa Cruz loc 2551 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg.7 (demo match) 805 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2552 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg. 18 (ext 5-15) Feb-17 90 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 Watsonville loc 2552 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg. 18 (14S-24) 950 0 950 0 0 0 0 0 950 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2556 Harkins Slough Rd & Main St, Sidewalk Infill 120 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 8,529 710 3,390 4,429 0 0 0 1,060 6,304 500 665 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 26,342 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Watsonville loc 413 Rt 1 Harkins Slough Rd interchange (12S-037) -7,340 0 -462 -6,878 0 0 0 -462 -6,878 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 413 Rt 1 Harkins Slough Rd interchange 700 0 0 0 700- 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 SCCRTC tdm 923 Rt 1 Freeway Service Patrol SOF -150 0 -150 0 0 0 0 0 -150 0 0 0 0 SCCRTC tdm 923 Rt 1 Freeway Service Patrol SOF 150 0=1 0 1501 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2366 Airport Blvd at Freedom Blvd modifications -850 -850 0 0 0 0 0 0 -850 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2366 Airport Blvd at Freedom Blvd modifications (HSIP) 850 0 850 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2555 Airport BI Improvements -1,195 0 -1,195 0 0 0 0 0 -1,195 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2555 Airport BlImprovements SOF 1,195 0i 0 1,195 0 0 0 0 1,195 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Co. loc 2557 Casseriy Rd Bridge Replacement -125 0 -125 0 0 0 0 0 -125 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Co. loc 2557 Casseriy Rd Bridge Replacement SOF 125 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz loc 4658 Rt 1/9 Intersection modifications (14S-23) -1,329 0 -1,329 0 0 0 0 0 -1,329 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz loc 4658 Rt 1/9 Intersection modifications (14S-23) SOF 1,329 0 0 1,329 0 0 0 0 1,329 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Santa Cruz Page 62 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Santa Cruz Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup SCCRTC loc 73A Rt1, 41st-Soquel Aux Lns,bike/ped bridge(14S-23) -4,000 0 -4,000 0 0 0 0 -1,430 0 0 -2,570 0 0 SCCRTC loc 73A Rt1, 41st-Soquel Aux Lns,bike/ped bridge(14S-23) 4,000 0 0 2,570 1,430 0 0 1,430 0 0 2,570 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -6,640 -850 -6,411 -1,634 2,255 0 0 238 -6,878 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: SCCRTC loc 1968 Rt 1 Mar Vista bike/ped overcrossing -6,564 -500 -1,635 -4,429 0 0 0 -1,060 -4,429 -500 -575 0 0 SCCRTC loc 1968 Rt 1 Mar Vista bike/ped overcrossing SOF 6,564 0 0 575 0 5,989 0 1,060 4,929 0 575 0 0 Santa Cruz loc 2551 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg.7 (demo match) -805 0 -805 0 0 0 0 0 -805 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz loc 2551 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg.7 (demo match) SOF 805 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2552 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg. 18 (14S-24) -950 0 -950 0 0 0 0 0 -950 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2552 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Seg. 18 (14S-24) SOF 950 0 0 950 0 0 0 0 950 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2556 Harkins Slough Rd & Main St, Sidewalk Infill -120 -120 0 0 0 0 0 0 -120 0 0 0 0 Watsonville loc 2556 Harkins Slough Rd & Main St, Sidewalk Infill SOF 120 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 -620 -3,270 -2,099 0 5,989 0 0 500 -500 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -6,640 Watsonville Nominated loc Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations 413 Rt 1 Harkins Slough Rd interchange 6,640 0 0 0 0 6,640 0 0 6,640 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 PPNOs 4658, 2551, 2555, 2552, 2556, 2557, 2558, 73A, 1968, 923, 921 - Proposing state only funds (SOF) PPNO 413 - Construction can be reprogrammed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Santa Cruz Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 28.681 26.342 2,339 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -6.640 Santa Cruz Page 63 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Shasta Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup con sup Highway Projects: Shasta RTPA 2368 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 147 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 5 3445A Redding -Anderson, Knighton O/C -Chum Crk O/C, 6-In 12,796 674 12,122 0 0 0 0 6 11,020 0 658 10 1,102 Caltrans 5 3445B Redding -Anderson, North St U/C-Knighton O/C, 6-In 2,607 2,607 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 2,482 50 0 Shasta RTPA 2368 Planning, programming, and monitoring 717 147 190 190 190 0 0 0 717 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 16,267 3,575 12,312 190 190 0 0 81 11,884 0 3,140 60 1102 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Redding loc 2559 Browning St, Canby Rd -Churn Crk Rd, Complete Street 275 0 275 0 0 0 0 0 275 0 0 0 0 Redding loc 2560 Sac River Trail to Downtown, multiple street ped. improv 400 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 675 0 675 0 0 0 0. 0 675 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 16,942 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 5 3445A Redding -Anderson, Knighton O/C -Chum Crk O/C, 6-In -12,796 -674 -12,122 0 0 0 0 -6 -11,020 0 -658 -10 -1,102 Caltrans 5 3445A Redding to Anderson -Six Lane -Phase 1 "Little Easy" 12,796 674 F 0 0 0 12,122 0 6 11,020 0 658 10 1,102 Caltrans 5 3445B Redding -Anderson, North St U/C-Knighton O/C, 6-In -2,607 -2,607 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 -2,482 -50 0 Caltrans 5 3445B Redding to Anderson Six lane -Phase 2 2,607 2,607 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 2,482 50 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0-12,122 0 0 12,122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Redding loc 2559 Browning St, Canby Rd -Churn Crk Rd, Complete Street DELETE -275 0 -275 0 0 0 0 0 -275 0 0 0 0 Redding loc 2560 Sac River Trail to Downtown, multiple street ped. improv -400 0 -400 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Redding loc 2560 Sac River Trail to Downtown, multiple street ped. improv 400 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -275 0 -675 0 0 400 0 0 -275 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -275 Notes: RTIP adopted December 18, 2015 (no revisions) PPNO 3445A - Name change and expanded scope PPNO 3445E - Name change Balance of STIP County Share, Shasta Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 18,385 16,942 1,443 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -275 Santa Cruz Page 64 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Sierra Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Proiects: Sierra LTC OL04 Planning, programming, and monitoring Dec-14 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 Sierra County loc 1704 Smithneck Creek Rd Rehabilitation Jun-15 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 Caltrans 89 1705 Truck pull-outs (SHOPP) 750 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 Sierra County loc 1704 Smithneck Creek Rd Rehabilitation 550 50 0 500 0 0 0 0 500 0 50 0 0 Sierra LTC OL04 Planning, programming, and monitoring 107 16 37 27 27 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 1,449 108 787 527 27 0 0 0 1,384 15 50 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Sierra County loc 1706 Smithneck Creek Bike Path Jun-15 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 Sierra County loc 1706 Smithneck Creek Bike Path 550 50 100 400 0 0 0 100 400 0 50 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 600 100 100 400 0 0 0 . 100 400 50 50 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 2,049 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Proiect Proposals: Caltrans 89 1705 Truck pull-outs (SHOPP) -750 0 -750 0 0 0 0 0 -750 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 89 1705 Truck pull-outs (SHOPP pre -con) 750 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 Sierra County loc 1704 Smithneck Creek Rd Rehabilitation -550 -50 0 -500 0 0 0 0 -500 0 -50 0 0 Sierra County loc 1704 Smithneck Creek Rd Rehabilitation 550 50 0 0 500 0 0 0 500 0 50 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 -750 250 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Sierra County loc 1706 Smithneck Creek Bike Path -550 -50 -100 -400 0 0 0 -100 -400 0 -50 0 0 Sierra County loc 1706 Smithneck Creek Bike Path 550 50 0 100 400 0 0 100 400 0 50 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals 0 0 -100 -300 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Sierra LTC OL04 Planning, programming, and monitoring incr 27 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 PPNO OL04 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2016 ($94) Balance of STIP County Share, Sierra Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 3,009 2,049 960 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Sierra Page 65 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Siskiyou Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Dorris loc 2485 N. Oregon St, 1st St -Sly St, rehab SB 184 Aug-14 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Etna loc 2486 Scott Street, Rt 3-Collier Way, rehab SB 184 Aug-14 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Montague loc 2523 7th and 8th Streets, Prather St -Web St, rehab SB 184 Aug-14 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Ca[trans 97 3530 Angel Maple Operational Improvements (SHOPP) Aug-14 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 Dorris loc 2485 N. Oregon St, 1st St -Sly St, rehab Oct-14 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 Etna loc 2486 Scott Street, Rt 3-Collier Way, rehab Oct-14 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2499 Gazelle - Callahan Rd, rehab Oct-14 850 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 850 0 0 0 0 Montague loc 2523 7th and 8th Streets, Prather St -Web St, rehab Dec-14 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Yreka loc 2452 Foothill Drive, Rt 5-3.1 miles east, rehab May-15 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2474 Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge, replace (HBP match) 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 Dorris loc 2485 N. Oregon St, 1st St -Sly St, rehab 225 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 Etna loc 2486 Scott Street, Rt 3-Collier Way, rehab 339 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 339 0 0 0 0 Yreka loc 2500 S. Oregon St. Lawrence-4H Way SOF 867 0 0 63 804 0 0 0 804 3 60 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2506 Old Hwy 99 at Guys Gulch Bridge, replace (HBP) 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2517 Mt Shasta Blvd, Ski Village -Springhill Dr, guardrail 241 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 12 22 0 0 Yreka loc 2518 Oregon St, Miner St -north end, rehab SOF 647 50 597 0 0 0 0 0 597 3 47 0 0 Weed loc 2521 Lincoln Rd, Union Ave, Angel Valley Rd, rehab 785 0 0 50 735 0 0 0 735 10 40 0 0 Montague loc 2522 Rehab 6th & Ridgeview SOF 497 0 42 455 0 0 0 0 455 5 37 0 0 Montague loc 2523 7th and 8th Streets, Prather St -Web St, rehab 86 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 Weed loc 2541 Vista Drive Rehab 1,860 65 100 1,695 0 0 0 0 1,695 65 100 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2544 Ream Ave. Rehab SOF 272 30 242 0 0 0 0 0 242 6 24 0 0 Montague loc 2545 South 9th St Rehab SOF 340 0 29 311 0 0 0 0 311 4 25 0 0 Tulelake loc 2546 Overlay & Rehab of various streets 812 0 0 92 720 0 0 10 720 32 50 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2553 Big Springs Rd Rehab, Phase 1 2,700 0 0 100 2,600 0 0 0 2,600 75 25 0 0 Dunsmuir loc 2554 Dunsmuir Rd Rehab SOF 188 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 38 150 0 0 Dorris loc 2555 California Street Rehab SOF 130 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 117 3 10 0 0 Etna loc 2556 Howell Ave Rehab SOF 370 0 32 338 0 0 0 0 338 4 28 0 0 Fort Jones loc 2557 Matthews St & Garlock St Pedestrian Improvements SOF 376 0 36 340 0 0 0 0 340 1 35 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2558 Mt. Shasta BI Rehab SOF 184 0 184 0 0 0 0 0 163 4 17 0 0 Siskiyou Co. loc 2568 Ager Rd Rehab 1,650 0 50 1,600 0 0 0 0 1,600 25 25 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 15,937 4,404 1,442 5,044 5,047 0 0 10 14,874 298 755 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 15,937 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Tulelake loc 2546 Overlay & Rehab of various streets -812 0 0 -92 -720 0 0 -10 -720 -32 -50 0 0 Tulelake loc 2546 Overlay & Rehab of various streets 812 0 0 0 32 60 720 10 720 32 50 0 0 Dunsmuir loc 2554 Dunsmuir Rd Rehab SOF DELETE -188 0 0 0 -188 0 0 0 0 -38 -150 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2558 Mt. Shasta BI Rehab SOF -184 0 -184 0 0 0 0 0 -163 -4 -17 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2558 Mt. Shasta BI Rehab SOF 184 0 0 0 0 0 184 0 163 4 17 0 0 Etna loc 2556 Howell Ave Rehab SOF -370 0 -32 -338 0 0 0 0 -338 -4 -28 0 0 Etna loc 2556 Howell Ave Rehab SOF 370 0 0 4 28 338 0 0 338 4 28 0 0 Fort Jones loc 2557 Matthews St & Carlock St Pedestrian Improvements SOF -376 0 -36 -340 0 0 0 0 -340 -1 -35 0 0 Fort Jones loc 2557 Matthews St & Carlock St Pedestrian Improvements SOF 376 0 0 1 35 340 0 0 340 1 35 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2544 Ream Ave. Rehab SOF -272 -30 -242 0 0 0 0 0 -242 -6 -24 0 0 Mount Shasta loc 2544 Ream Ave. Rehab SOF 272 30 0 242 0 0 0 0 242 6 24 0 0 California Transportation Commission Siskiyou Page 66 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Siskiyou Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup Con sup Montague Montague loc loc 2545 2545 South 9th St Rehab SOF -340 0 -29 -311 0 0 0 0 -311 -4 -25 0 0 South 9th St Rehab SOF 340 0 0 0 0 29 311 0 311 4 25 0 0 Dorris loc 2555 California Street Rehab SOF -130 0 -130 0 0 0 0 0 -117 -3 -10 0 0 Dorris loc 2555 California Street Rehab SOF 130 0 0 13 T 117 0 0 0 117 3 10 0 0 Siskiyou Co. loc 2568 Ager Rd Rehab -1,650 0 -50 -1,600 0 0 0 0 -1,600 -25 -25 0 0 Siskiyou Co. loc 2568 Ager Rd Rehab 1,650 0 0 50 1,600 0 0 0 1,600 0 50 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2553 Big Springs Rd Rehab, Phase 1 -2,700 0 0 -100 -2,600 0 0 0 -2,600 -75 -25 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2553 Big Springs Rd Rehab, Phase 1 100 0 0 0 0 25 75 0 0 25 75 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2474 Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge, replace (HBP match) -75 -75 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2474 Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge, replace (HBP match) 75 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2506 Old Hwy 99 at Guys Gulch Bridge, replace (HBP) -75 -75 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 0 0 Siskiyou Co loc 2506 Old Hwy 99 at Guys Gulch Bridge, replace (HBP) 75 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 Weed loc 2541 Vista Drive Rehab -1,860 -65 -100 -1,695 0 0 0 0 -1,695 -65 -100 0 0 Weed loc 2541 Vista Drive Rehab 1,860 65 0 100 0 1,695 0 0 1,695 65 100 0 0 Yreka loc 2500 S. Oregon St. Lawrence-4H Way SOF -867 0 0 -63 -804 0 0 0 -804 -3 -60 0 0 Yreka loc 2500 S. Oregon St. Lawrence-4H Way SOF 867 0 0 0 3 60 804 0 804 3 60 0 0 Yreka loc 2518 Oregon St, Miner St -north end, rehab SOF -647 -50 -597 0 0 0 0 0 -597 -3 -47 0 0 Yreka loc 2518 Oregon St, Miner St -north end, rehab SOF 647 50 0 597 0 0 0 0 597 3 47 0 0 Weed loc 2521 Lincoln Rd, Union Ave, Angel Valley Rd, rehab -785 0 0 -50 -735 0 0 0 -735 -10 -40 0 0 Weed loc 2521 Lincoln Rd, Union Ave, Angel Valley Rd, rehab 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 10 40 0 0 Montague loc 2522 Rehab 6th & Ridgeview SOF -497 0 -42 -455 0 0 0 0 -455 -5 -37 0 0 Montague loc 2522 Rehab 6th & Ridgeview SOF 497 0 0 5 37 455 0 0 455 5 37 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -3,523 -150 -1,292 -4,032 -3,195 3,002 2,144 0 -3,335 -113 -75 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -3,523 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 9 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Siskiyou Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 15,025 15,937 0 912 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -3,523 Siskiyou Page 67 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Solano Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: MTC 2152 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 37 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 STA 2263 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 191 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 Fairfield loc 5301T Jepson Parkway, Vanden Rd, Peabody -Leisure Town 19,376 19,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,376 0 0 0 0 Vacaville loc 5301 U Jepson Parkway, Leisure Town Rd, Vanden -Commerce 19,377 19,377 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,377 0 0 0 0 STA loc 5301V Jepson Pkwy, Leisure Town Rd, Commerce -Orange 9,360 0 0 0 9,360 0 0 0 9,360 0 0 0 0 MTC 2152 Planning, programming, and monitoring 164 39 40 42 43 0 0 0 164 0 0 0 0 STA 2263 Planning, programming, and monitoring 779 98 274 203 204 0 0 0 779 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 49,284 39,118 314 245 9,607 0 0 0 49,284 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 945 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 945 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 945 0 945 0 0 0 0 0 945 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 50,229 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: STA loc 5301V Jepson Pkwy, Leisure Town Rd, Commerce -Orange -9,360 0 0 0 -9,360 0 0 0 -9,360 0 0 0 0 STA loc 5301V Jepson Pkwy, Leisure Town Rd, Commerce -Orange 3,296 0 0 0 3,296 0 01 0 3,296 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -6,064 0 0 0 -6,064 0 0 0 -6,064 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -945 0 -945 0 0 0 0 0 -945 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -945 0 -945 0 0 0 0 0 -945 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -7,009 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 2, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Solano Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 50,200 50,229 0 29 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -7,009 Solano Page 68 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Sonoma Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: MTC 2156 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Aug-14 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 360H Marin-Sonoma Narrows Petaluma BI WC (supplmental) Jan-15 5,526 5,526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,526 Caltrans 101 789E HOV Ins, College Av/6th/#789A(RIP)(supplmental) May-15 1,220 1,220 0 0 0 0 0 0 920 0 0 0 300 Caltrans 101 789F HOV lanes, landscaping /#789A (ext 6-15) Feb-17 3,527 3,527 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,452 0 560 0 515 SCTA 770E Planning, programming, and monitoring 972 125 343 504 0 0 0 0 972 0 0 0 0 MTC 2156 Planning, programming, and monitoring 197 47 48 50 52 0 0 0 197 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 11,487 10,490 391 554 52 0 0 0 4,586 0 560 0 6341 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: SMART loc 5156L SMART bike/ped path, Rohnert Park (ext 5-14) Jun-15 Jun-15 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 SMART loc 5156P SMART bike/ped path, Rohnert Park (addt'I segment) Jun-15 1,043 1,043 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,043 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span 1,177 0 1,177 0 0 0 0 0 1,177 0 0 0 0 Santa Rosa loc 9038A Downtown Streetscape 353 353 0 0 0 0 0 0 353 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 5,573 4,396 1,177 0 0 0 0 0 5,573 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 17,060 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 80 9051A Improved Bike/Ped Access to SFOBB East Span DELETE -1,177 0 -1,177 0 0 0 0 0 -1,177 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -1,177 0 -1,177 0 0 0 0 0 -1,177 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,177 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted March 23, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Sonoma Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 767 17,060 0 16,293 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,177 Sonoma Page 69 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Stanislaus Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Projects: StanCOG 9953 Planning, programming, and monitoring Mar-15 247 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 132 944M 2-lane expressway, new align. Dakota Av-Rt 99 (west)(Ph 1) 639 639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 455 0 Modesto loc 944M Rt 132 2-lane expwy, Dakota Av-Rt 99 (west) (Ph1) (ext 6-14) Feb-16 1,153 1,153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,153 0 0 Modesto loc 944M Rt 132 2-lane expwy, new align. Dakota Av-Rt 99 (west)(Ph 1) 18,914 18,914 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,914 0 0 0 0 Modesto loc 9460 Rt 99/Pelandale Ave WC reconstruction 4,336 0 4,336 0 0 0 0 4,336 0 0 0 0 0 Modesto loc 3027 Rt 132 4-lane expwy, Dakota Av-Rt 99 (W)(Ph1A) 9,641 0 0 500 9,141 0 0 500 9,141 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus Co loc 3047 McHenry Av, Rt 108 (Ladd/Patterson)-McHenry Bridge, widen 4,100 0 0 4,100 0 0 0 0 4,100 0 0 0 0 StanCOG 9953 Planning, programming, and monitoring 1,236 246 330 330 330 0 0 0 1,236 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 40,266 21,199 4,666 4,930 9,471 0 0 4,836 33,638 0 1,337 455 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 40,266 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Modesto loc 3027 Rt 132 4-lane expwy, Dakota Av-Rt 99 (W)(Ph1A) combine -9,641 0 0 -500 -9,141 0 0 -500 -9,141 0 0 0 0 Modesto loc 944M Rt 132 2-lane expwy, new align. Dakota Av-Rt 99 (west)(Ph 1) combine -18,914 -18,914 0 0 0 0 0 0 -18,914 0 0 0 0 Modesto loc 944M Rt 132 2-lane expwy, Dakota Av-Rt 99 (west) (Ph1) 28,555 0 0 500 28,055 0 0 500 28,055 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus Co IOC 3047 McHenry Av, Rt 108 (Ladd/Patterson)-McHenry Bridge, widen DELETE -4,100 0 0 -4,100 0 0 0 0 -4,100 0 0 0 0 Modesto loc 9460 Rt 99/Pelandale Ave WC reconstruction -4,336 0 -4,336 0 0 0 0 -4,336 0 0 0 0 0 Modesto loc 9460 Rt 99/Pelandale Ave WC reconstruction 4,336 0 - 0 0 0 4,336 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -4,100 -18,914 -4,336 236 18,914 0 0 0 -4,100 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -4,100 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 17, 2016 PPNO 3027 - Combined with PPNO 0944M PPNO 3047 - Construction can be reprogrammed in a future STIP Balance of STotal County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 41,285 40,266 1,019 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -4,100 Stanislaus Page 70 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Sutter Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Proiects: SACOG 1L53 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, improve approaches 3,970 0 0 3,970 0 0 0 0 3,970 0 0 0 0 SACOG 1L53 Planning, programming, and monitoring 228 0 76 76 76 0 0 0 228 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 4,253 55 76 4,046 76 0 0 0 4,253 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 4,253 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, improve approaches -3,970 0 0 -3,970 0 0 0 0 -3,970 0 0 0 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, improve approaches 3,970 0 0 0 0 3,970 0 0 3,970 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 0 -3,970 0 3,970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Sutter Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 4,253 4,253 0 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Sutter Page 71 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Tahoe RPA Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Highway Proiects: Placer County cash 4679A AB 3090 reimb (Rt 28 Kings Beach) (12S-018) fr 15-16 to 17-18 Jun-15 1,034 1,034 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,034 0 0 0 0 Ca!trans 50 3208 Trout Crk-Ski Run BI, improvs (ph1)(shopp) (suppl) Jun-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Placer County cash 4679A AB 3090 reimb (Rt 28 Kings Beach) (12S-018) fr 15-16 to 17-18 3,966 0 2,584 1,382 0 0 0 0 3,966 0 0 0 0 Placer County loc 1520 Rt 28, Kings Beach Core Imprvs Gateway, Ph2 7,600 0 7,600 0 0 0 0 0 7,600 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 12,600 1,034 10,184 1,382 0 0 0 0 12,600 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 12,600 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming 0 Notes: RTIP adopted December 16, 2015 (no revisions) PPNO 1520 - 3090 as per amendment in early 15/16 Balance of STIP County Share, Tahoe RPA Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 8,263 12,600 0 4.337 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission 0 Tahoe RPA Page 72 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Tehama Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con Sup Highway Projects: Tehama County loc 2378 Jelly's Ferry Bridge at Sacramento River SB 184 Aug-14 358 358 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 309 0 0 Tehama LTC 2063 Planning, programming, and monitoring Oct-14 140 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 City of Tehama loc 2509 5th St/Gyle Rd, reconstruction & drainage imp. Mar-15 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Tehama County loc 2379 Evergreen Rd Br, Cottonwood Crk, rplc (08S-41)(LBSRA) Jun-15 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2331 McCoy Rd low-water crossing, HBP match 683 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 683 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2333 Kirkwood Rd Bridge, Jewett Crk, HBP (ext 6-15) Mar-16 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 Tehama County loc 2334 Columbia Av Bridge, Jewett Crk, HBP (ext 6-15) Mar-16 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 Tehama County loc 2333 Kirkwood Rd Bridge, Jewett Crk, HBP 271 6 265 0 0 0 0 6 265 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2378 Jelly's Ferry Bridge at Sacramento River 2,333 2,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,333 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2379 Evergreen Rd Br, Cottonwood Crk, rplc (08S-41)(LBSRA) 1,730 1,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,730 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2493 Tehama County Bridges, deck restoration 244 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 244 0 0 0 0 City of Tehama loc 2509 5th St/Gyle Rd, reconstruction & drainage imp. 1,083 1,083 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,083 0 0 0 0 Red Bluff loc 2527 Baker Rd at Brickyard Creek Bridge, HBP match 136 6 0 130 0 0 0 0 130 0 6 0 0 Tehama County loc 2567 99W, Glenn Co Line to City of Corning 3,055 0 0 55 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 55 0 0 Tehama County loc 2569 99W, Gyle to South Main at 1-5 overcross 2,950 0 0 50 2,900 0 0 0 2,900 0 50 0 0 Tehama LTC 2063 Planning, programming, and monitoring 290 0 150 0 140 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 13,453 6,763 415 235 6,040 0 0 105 12,798 0 550 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Corning loc 2401 Solano Streetscape improvements May-15 1,661 1,661 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,661 0 0 0 0 Ca!trans 99 2528 Rt 99 Los Molinos Enhancements Ph 3 1,200 0 80 85 1,035 0 0 5 1,000 80 80 0 35 Tehama County loc 2570 Grant St, Rt 99-Baily Rd, Los Molinos Enhancements Ph3 1,200 0 85 1,115 0 0 0 0 1,115 0 85 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 4,061 1,661 165 1,200 1,035 0 0 5 3,776 80 165 0 35 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 17,514 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Tehama LTC 2063 Planning, programming, and monitoring -290 0 -150 0 -140 0 0 0 -290 0 0 0 0 Tehama LTC 2063 Planning, programming, and monitoring 290 0 150 140 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2569 99W, Gyle to South Main at 1-5 overcross -2,950 0 0 -50 -2,900 0 0 0 -2,900 0 -50 0 0 Tehama County loc 2569 99W Corridor/1-5 Operational & Access Improvements 555 0 =-0 15011,100 305 0 0 305 150 100 0 0 Tehama County loc 2378 Jelly's Ferry Bridge at Sacramento River DELETE -2,333 -2,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,333 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2379 Evergreen Rd Br, Cottonwood Crk, rplc (08S-41)(LBSRA) -1,730 -1,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,730 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2379 Evergreen Rd Br, Cottonwood Crk, rplc (08S-41)(LBSRA) incr 2,795 0 0 2,795 0 0 0 0 2,795 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2331 McCoy Rd low-water crossing, HBP match -683 -683 0 0 0 0 0 0 -683 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2331 McCoy Rd low-water crossing & approaches, HBP match 2,208 0 0 100 225 1,883 0 150 1,883 100 75 0 0 Tehama County loc 2333 Kirkwood Rd Bridge, Jewett Crk, HBP -271 -6 -265 0 0 0 0 -6 -265 0 0 0 0 Tehama County loc 2333 Kirkwood Rd Bridge, Jewett Crk, HBP 271 6 0 0 0 0 265 6 265 0 0 0 0 Red Bluff loc 2527 Baker Rd at Brickyard Creek Bridge, HBP match -136 -6 0 -130 0 0 0 0 -130 0 -6 0 0 Red Bluff loc 2527 Baker Rd at Brickyard Creek Bridge, HBP match 136 0 0 6 0 130 0 0 130 0 6 0 0 Tehama County loc 2567 99W, Glenn Co Line to City of Corning DELETE -3,055 0 0 -55 -3,000 0 0 0 -3,000 0 -55 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -5,193 -4,752 -265 2,956 -5,715 2,318 265 150 -5,663 250 70 0 0 California Transportation Commission Tehama Page 73 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Tehama Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project EXt Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Caltrans 99 2528 Rt 99 Los Molinos Enhancements Ph 3 -1,200 0 -80 -85 -1,035 0 0 -5 -1,000 -80 -80 0 -35 Caltrans 99 2528 Rt 99 Los Molinos Enhancements Ph 3 1,200 0 0 80 85 L 0 1,034 0 1,035 80 85 0 0 Tehama County loc 2570 Grant St, Rt 99-Baily Rd, Los Molinos Enhancements Ph3 DELETE -1,200 0 -85 -1,115 0 0 0 0 -1,115 0 -85 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -1,200 0 -165 -1,120 -950 0 1,035 -5 -1,080 0 -80 0 -35 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -6,393 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Caltrans 99 2528 Rt 99 Los Molinos Enhancements Ph 3 incr 2,813 0 0 0 0 0 2,813 0 2,813 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 25, 2016 PPNO 2569 - Reduced scope and changed project name PPNO 2378 - Project being delivered with LBSRA funds PPNO 2331 - Revised scope to meet federal requirement PPNO 2528 - Increase can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP County Share, Tehama Total County Share, June 30, 2015 17,383 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 17,514 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 0 131 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -6, 393 Tehama Page 74 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Trinity Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Trinity County loc 2138B East Connector, Rt 299-Rt 3, signals at Rt 299 (Ph 2) Aug-14 6,572 6,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,572 0 0 0 0 Trinity County loc 2464 Hayfork Crk Br on Wildwood (HBP) (ext 6-14) Mar-15 Oct-14 417 417 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 0 0 0 0 Trinity CTC 2066 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 3 3528 Weaverville, Rt 299-Coffee Crk, turnouts (SHOPP) 1,000 150 0 850 0 0 0 0 850 150 0 0 0 Trinity County loc 2421 Wildwood Rd reconstruction, segment 1 60 0 0 0 60 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity County loc 2465 Lewiston Rd No. 202, PM 4.8-5.84, rehab 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Trinity CTC 2066 Planning, programming, and monitoring 160 40 40 40 40 0 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 8,629 7,199 40 890 500 0 0 60 8,419 150 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Trinity County loc 2399D Lewiston Rd bike/ped lane 331 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 331 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 8,960 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Trinity County loc 2421 Wildwood Rd reconstruction, segment 1 -60 0 0 0 -60 0 0 -60 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity County loc 2421 Wildwood Rd reconstruction, segment 1 60 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity County loc 2465 Lewiston Rd No. 202, PM 4.8-5.84, rehab DELETE 400 0 0 0 -400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 3 3528 Weaverville, Rt 299-Coffee Crk, turnouts (SHOPP) -1,000 -150 0 -850 0 0 0 0 -850 -150 0 0 0 Caltrans 3 3528 Weaverville, Rt 299-Coffee Crk, turnouts (SHOPP) 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 Trinity CTC 2066 Planning, programming, and monitoring -160 40 -40 -40 -40 0 0 0 -160 0 0 0 0 Trinity CTC 2066 Planning, programming, and monitoring 160 40 0 10 20 90 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,250 0 -40 -880 -480 90 60 0 -1,250 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Trinity County loc 2399D Lewiston Rd bike/ped lane DELETE -331 0 0 0 -331 0 0 0 -331 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -331 0 0 0 -331 0 0 0 -331 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,581 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Trinity CTC 2066 Planning, programming, and monitoring 37 0 0 0 0 17 20 0 37 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Trinity Page 75 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Trinity Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior Project Totals by Fiscal Year 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Project Totals by Component Const E & P PS&E RIW Sup Con Sup Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 25, 2016 PPNO 2066 - Exceeds share period maximum for 2020 ($0) Balance of STIP County Share, Trinity Total County Share, June 30, 2015 7,666 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 8,960 Unprogrammed Share Balance 0 Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 1,294 Proposed New Programming -1,581 California Transportation Commission Trinity Page 76 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Tulare Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Caltrans 216 106Y Rt 216 widening, landscape (split at vote fr 106) (ext 6-14) Mar-15 Mar-15 908 908 0 0 0 0 0 0 582 0 266 0 60 Caltrans 99 6400C Tulare to Goshen, 6-lane Freeway, Middle Seg(RIP) Jun-15 9,437 9,437 0 0 0 0 0 600 6,750 0 487 50 1,550 Caltrans 65 8650A Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 1 10,913 10,913 0 0 0 0 0 5,730 0 297 1,386 2,000 1,500 Caltrans 65 8650B Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 2 297 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 Caltrans 65 8650C Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 3 297 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 Caltrans 65 8650D Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 4 296 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 0 0 Caltrans 65 104 Align Rd 204, Rt 65-Rt 198, 4 lanes 4,707 3,150 1,557 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,150 1,557 0 0 Caltrans 99 6400E Tagus 6-lane southbound widening (RIP) 4,975 975 0 4,000 0 0 0 750 4,000 0 200 25 0 Caltrans 99 6400F Tagus 6-lane northbound widening (RIP) 5,913 0 0 5,913 0 0 0 5,100 0 0 225 588 0 Caltrans 99 6369 Tulare, 6-lane Freeway, Prosperity Av I/C-Av 200 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 6423 Betty Drive Interchange improvements 16,720 16,720 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 2,120 3,108 492 5,000 Subtotal, Highway Projects 58,463 42,993 1,557 9,913 4,000 0 0 18,180 11,332 10,457 7,229 3,155 8110 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 58,463 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 65 104 Align Rd 204, Rt 65-Rt 198, 4lanes -4,707 -3,150 -1,557 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3,150 -1,557 0 0 Caltrans 65 104 Align Rd 204, Rt 65-Rt 198, 4lanes 3,150 3,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,150 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 6369 Tulare, 6-lane Freeway, Prosperity Av I/C-Av 200 -4,000 0 0 0 -4,000 0 0 0 0 -4,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 6369 Tulare, 6-lane Freeway, Prosperity Av I/C-Av 200 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 Caltrans 99 6400E Tagus 6-lane southbound widening (RIP) -4,975 -975 0 -4,000 0 0 0 -750 -4,000 0 -200 -25 0 Caltrans 99 6400E Tagus 6-lane southbound widening (RIP) 975 975 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 200 25 0 Caltrans 99 6400F Tagus 6-lane northbound widening (RIP) -5,913 0 0 -5,913 0 0 0 -5,100 0 0 -225 -588 0 Caltrans 99 6400F Tagus 6-lane northbound widening (RIP) 5,913 0 0 225 5,688 0 0 5,100 0 0 225 588 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects -6,557 0 -1,557 -9,688 1,688 0 3,000 0 -4,000 -1,000 -1,557 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -6,557 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 22, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Tulare Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 62,283 58,463 3,820 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -6,557 Tulare Page 77 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Tuolumne Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Tuolumne CTC 452 Planning, programming, and monitoring SB 184 Oct-14 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 Tuolumne Co loc 235 Mono Way op improvements (Rt 108 relinq)(ext 6-15) Feb-17 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 Tuolumne Co loc 235 Mono Way op improvements (Rt 108 relinq)(12S-023) 1,536 0 192 1,344 0 0 0 192 1,344 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 108 3048 Peaceful Oaks Rd Interchange ramps 9,781 1,470 0 8,311 0 0 0 20 7,120 226 1,066 158 1,191 Tuolumne CTC 452 Planning, programming, and monitoring 279 59 89 66 65 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 11,736 1,669 281 9,721 65 0 0 212 8,803 226 1,146 158 1191 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 11,736 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Tuolumne Co loc 235 Mono Way op improvements (Rt 108 relinq)(12S-023) -1,536 0 -192 -1,344 0 0 0 -192 -1,344 0 0 0 0 Tuolumne Co loc 235 Mono Way op improvements (Rt 108 relinq)(12S-023) 192 0 0 192 0 0 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 108 3048 Peaceful Oaks Rd Interchange ramps -9,781 -1,470 0 -8,311 0 0 0 -20 -7,120 -226 -1,066 -158 -1,191 Caltrans 108 3048 Peaceful Oaks Rd Interchange ramps 9,170 1,470 iQ 0 7,700 0 0 20 6,509 226 1,066 158 1,191 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -1,955 0 -192 -9,463 7,700 0 0 0 -1,955 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -1,955 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Tuolumne City loc Rt 49/Stockton and Washington Roads Improvements NEW 336 0 0 336 0 0 0 0 336 0 0 0 0 Note: Revised RTIP adopted February 10, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Tuolumne Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 12,072 11,736 336 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -1,955 Tuolumne Page 78 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Ventura Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: Thousand Oaks cash 2291A AB3090 Reimbursement (Rt 101 Co In-Rt23)(12S-013) 15,764 15,764 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,764 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 101 4740 Santa Clara River Riparian Mitigation 1,864 1,864 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,864 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 118 4741 Widening, Los Angeles Av-Tapo Canyon Rd, env 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 VCTC loc 4625 Rt 101 HOV lanes, Moorpark Rd to Rt 33, env 14,000 0 0 14,000 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 0 VCTC 9002 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,062 412 550 550 550 0 0 0 2,062 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 36,690 18,040 550 17,550 550 0 0 0 19,690 17,000 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 36,690 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Caltrans 118 4741 Widening, Los Angeles Av-Tapo Canyon Rd, env DELETE -3,000 0 0 -3,000 0 0 0 0 0 -3,000 0 0 0 VCTC loc 4625 Rt 101 HOV lanes, Moorpark Rd to Rt 33, env DELETE -14,000 0 0 -14,000 0 0 0 0 0 -14,000 0 0 0 VCTC 9002 Planning, programming, and monitoring -2,062 -412 -550 -550 -550 0 0 0 -2,062 0 0 0 0 VCTC 9002 Planning, programming, and monitoring 2,062 412 413 413 412 412 0 0 2,062 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -17,000 0 -137 -17,137 -138 412 0 0 0 -17,000 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -17,000 Notes: RTIP adopted October 2, 2015 (no revisions) Balance of STIP County Share, Ventura Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 55,182 36,690 18,492 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -17,000 Ventura Page 79 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Yolo Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: SACOG OL37 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 118 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 Ca!trans 5 301X I-5/Rt 113 connection, Phase 2 , correction 8,726 8,726 0 0 0 0 0 2,926 0 50 4,750 1,000 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, approach (in Sutter) 2,812 0 0 2,812 0 0 0 0 2,812 0 0 0 0 West Sac loc 1916 Village Pkwy Extension, Stonegate-Pioneer Bluff bridge 2,500 0 0 735 1,765 0 0 0 1,765 735 0 0 0 Davis loc 1918 Mace Blvd Complete Street, Blue Oak -Cowell BI 1,912 0 0 0 1,912 0 0 0 1,912 0 0 0 0 SACOG OL37 Planning, programming, and monitoring 474 0 158 158 158 0 0 0 474 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 16,542 8,844 158 3,705 3,835 0 0 2,926 7,081 785 4,750 1,000 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Davis loc 8726 Third St improvements, A St -B St, CIP No. 8164 3,292 0 0 3,292 0 0 0 0 3,292 0 0 0 0 Woodland loc 8727 East Main St improvements, East St -Pioneer Ave 1,080 500 0 0 580 0 0 0 580 500 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 4,372 500 0 3,292 580 0 0 0 3,872 500 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 20,914 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: West Sac loc 1916 Village Pkwy Extension, Stonegate-Pioneer Bluff bridge DELETE -2,500 0 0 -735 -1,765 0 0 0 -1,765 -735 0 0 0 Davis loc 1918 Mace Blvd Complete Street, Blue Oak -Cowell BI -1,912 0 0 0 -1,912 0 0 0 -1,912 0 0 0 0 Davis loc 1918 Mace Blvd Complete Street, Blue Oak -Cowell BI 1,778 0 0 0 0 1,778 0 0 1,778 0 0 0 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, approach (in Sutter) -2,812 0 0 -2,812 0 0 0 0 -2,812 0 0 0 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, approach (in Sutter) 2,812 0 0 0 0 2,812 0 0 2,812 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals -2,634 0 0 -3,547 -3,677 4,590 0 0 -1,899 -735 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Woodland loc 8727 East Main St improvements, East St -Pioneer Ave -1,080 -500 0 0 -580 0 0 0 -580 -500 0 0 0 Woodland loc 8727 East Main St improvements, East St -Pioneer Ave 580 0 0 0 580 0 0 0 580 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -500 -500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -3,134 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Yolo Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 24,520 20,914 3,606 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -3,134 Yolo Page 80 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Yuba Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 RAN Const E & P PS&E raw sup con sup Highway Projects: SACOG OL41 Planning, programming, and monitoring Jun-15 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, approach (in Sutter) 10,633 0 0 10,633 0 0 0 0 10,633 0 0 0 0 Yuba County loc 2010 Olivehurst Av Roundabout at Powerline/Chesnut 717 0 0 717 0 0 0 0 717 0 0 0 0 SACOG OL41 Planning, programming, and monitoring 174 0 58 58 58 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Projects 11,566 42 58 11,408 58 0 0 0 11,566 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Yuba County loc 2011 Powerline Rd Safe Route to School, 9th-15th (Ph 2) 500 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 Yuba County loc 9679 N. Beale Rd Complete Streets revitalization (Ph 1) 1,765 1,765 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,765 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bike & Ped Projects 2,265 1,765 500 0 0 0 0 0 2,265 0 0 0 0 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 13,831 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, approach (in Sutter) -10,633 0 0 -10,633 0 0 0 0 -10,633 0 0 0 0 Yuba City loc 1675 Replace 5th St Feather Riv bridge, approach (in Sutter) 10,633 0 Or 0 0 10,633 0 0 10,633 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Highway Proposals 0 0 0-10,633 0 10,633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Proposals: Yuba County loc 2011 Powerline Rd Safe Route to School, 9th-15th (Ph 2) DELETE -500 0 -500 0 0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Proposals -500 0 -500 0 0 0 0 0 -500 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -500 Notes: Revised RTIP adopted February 18, 2016 Balance of STIP County Share, Yuba Total County Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 13,831 13,831 0 0 Proposed New Programming California Transportation Commission -500 Yuba Page 81 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Interregional Program Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component County Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup Con sup Hinhway Projects: Marin Caltrans 101 360G San Antonio Road curve correction (IIP)(10S-40) Oct-14 85,805 85,805 0 0 0 0 0 19,889 55,005 0 13 398 10,500 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125F Willits Bypass (grf,incr)(IIP, 85% con, R/W)(supplmntal) Dec-14 54,995 54,995 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,995 0 0 0 0 San Bemardino Caltrans 15 174L NB lane, Victorville-Barstow, ph2 (IIP) (ext 6-14) Dec-14 Dec-14 86,666 86,666 0 0 0 0 0 10,219 45,952 5,420 10,727 4,448 9,900 Los Angeles Caltrans 5 2808 Widen, HOV, Orange Co-Rt 605 Seg 2 (IIP)(TCR#42)(12S-48) Jun-15 15,130 15,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,130 0 0 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400C Tulare -Goshen, Middle Segment -Caldwell (IIP), 6-lane Jun-15 13,637 13,637 0 0 0 0 0 600 10,950 0 487 50 1,550 San Luis/SB Caltrans 101 A4459 Santa Maria River Bridge widening (IIP) (CMIA) (CCA 6-15) Jun-15 79 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 Merced Caltrans 99 546Y Fwy conversion, Arena Way -Dwight Way, landscape (CCA 6-15) Jun-15 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 Butte Caltrans 70 9801 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Seg 1 (IIP) (14S-18) 13,100 1,900 0 11,200 0 0 0 900 10,000 0 1,000 0 1,200 Butte BCAG 70 9801A Passing Lanes, Segment 2 (IIP)(pre-con) 1,500 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 500 0 0 Fresno Caltrans 41 6705 Excelsior Expressway, widen to 4lanes 2,142 0 0 2,142 0 0 0 772 0 0 1,000 370 0 Humboldt Caltrans 101 72 Eureka -Arcata corridor improvement (IIP) 15,700 0 0 0 15,700 0 0 0 15,700 0 0 0 0 Imperial Caltrans 98 549A Calexico w of Rt 111, widen to 4 lanes, Ph 1 (BIP) 4,423 4,423 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,749 0 0 0 1,674 Inyo Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (11P 40%) 46,820 11,420 0 0 35,400 0 0 5,407 32,160 2,749 2,051 1,213 3,240 Inyo Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(IIP 40%) 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Kern Caltrans 14 8042A Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 1 (IIP 40%) 17,955 5,520 12,435 0 0 0 0 3,800 11,195 0 1,000 720 1,240 Kern Caltrans 14 804213 Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%) 4,344 1,300 3,044 0 0 0 0 2,204 0 0 1,300 840 0 Kern Caltrans 46 3386C Widen to 4 lanes, Seg. 4A, Lost Hill Rd to E of 1-5 (IIP) 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 Lake Caltrans 29 3100 Widen to 4 lanes, Segment 2C (IIP) (SHOPP) 13,060 900 0 12,160 0 0 0 0 11,160 0 750 150 1,000 Los Angeles Caltrans 710 3612 Expansion, Ports to Rt 10 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 Madera Caltrans 99 6297 South of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, widen to 6 lanes (IIP) 1,500 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 Madera Caltrans 99 5335 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, widen to 6 lanes (IIP) 4,300 0 0 4,300 0 0 0 600 0 0 3,200 500 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125W Willits Bypass Relinquishment (grf) (14S-15) 3,096 170 2,926 0 0 0 0 170 2,926 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125Y Ryan Creek/Coho Salmon Mitigation (96 grf) (IIP)(126-043) 1,955 1,955 0 0 0 0 0 85 1,870 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) 3,145 170 2,975 0 0 0 0 170 2,975 0 0 0 0 Merced Caltrans 99 0161A Livingston 6-lane widening, northbound 2,870 800 0 2,070 0 0 0 10 0 800 2,050 10 0 Merced Caltrans 99 01616 Livingston 6-lane widening, southbound 38,950 4,700 300 0 33,950 0 0 200 29,450 1,700 3,000 100 4,500 Merced Caltrans 152 5707A Los Banos Bypass Segment 1 (IIP)(08S-09) 4,560 4,560 0 0 0 0 0 1,750 0 0 2,540 270 0 Monterey Caltrans 101 58Y Prunedale landscape mitigation (IIP)(split fr 58G)(125-016)(ext 5-15) Feb-17 3,523 3,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,722 0 257 5 539 Monterey Caltrans 156 57C 4-lane expressway, Castroville-Prunedale, env 7,700 7,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,700 0 0 0 San Benito Caltrans 156 297 4-lane expressway, San Juan Bautista (IIP) 61,986 32,744 29,242 0 0 0 0 21,808 25,822 3,936 5,450 1,550 3,420 San Bemardino Caltrans 58 215C 4-lane expressway, Kramer Junction Phase 1 194,838 39,743 155,095 0 0 0 0 18,387 139,427 8,600 8,000 4,756 15,668 San Bemardino Caltrans 395 26013 Fwy, expwy, Rt 15-Rt 58 (IIP) 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo Caltrans 46 226H Corridor Improvements (Whitley 213)(11P) 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 11,000 42,000 0 0 0 7,000 San Luis Obispo Caltrans 46 0226J Cholame, convert to 4-lane expressway 88,000 32,800 0 0 55,200 0 0 22,000 46,000 0 8,400 2,400 9,200 San Luis Obispo Caltrans 46 0226K Wye, convert to 4-lane expressway 19,100 0 0 0 19,100 0 0 7,000 0 0 9,700 2,400 0 Santa Barbara Caltrans 101 7101 South Coast HOV lanes, Ballard Av-Sycamore Crk (IIP) 7,000 2,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 5,000 0 0 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400E Tagus 6-lane southbound widening (IIP) 48,488 3,488 0 45,000 0 0 0 1,850 39,000 0 1,200 438 6,000 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400F Tagus 6-lane northbound widening (IIP) 4,337 0 0 4,337 0 0 0 2,900 0 0 825 612 0 Subtotal, interregional Highway Projects 942,103 485,527 209,517 82,709 164,350 0 0 132,721 584,058 43,405 83,980 21,308 76,631 Intercity Rail (Public Transportation) Pro(acts Ventura SCRRA rail 2088 Ventura County sealed corridor (1B ICR) Aug-14 7,200 7,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,200 0 0 0 0 Various CCJPA rail 2065J Capitalized maintenance (Capitol Corridor) Oct-14 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 Various CCJPA rail 2127L Bicycle Lockers at Capitol Corridor Stations (ext 6-14) Feb-15 Oct-14 556 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara Caltrans rail 2087 Siding upgrade and extension, SB Co. (12S-020) Dec-14 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 Ventura Caltrans rail 2089 Seacliff Siding Upgrade and Extension Dec-14 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 Ala/Santa Clara CCJPA rail 2090A Oakland to San Jose double track (segment 2A) 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles LACMTA gsep 2106 Burbank Airport/Rail Station Pedestrian Grade Sep. 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans rail 2098 Double Track near Northridge Station 63,500 63,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 63,500 0 0 0 0 Orange OCTA rail 2107 Passing Siding, Laguna Niguel -San Juan Capistrano 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 0 San Diego SANDAG rail 2108 Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization 4 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin Caltrans rail 203013 Stockton to Escalon Double Track, Segment 4 23,000 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara Caltrans rail 2087 Siding upgrade and extension, SB Co. (12S-020) 12,450 0 12,450 0 0 0 0 0 12,450 0 0 0 0 Ventura Caltrans rail 2089 Seacliff Siding Upgrade and Extension 7,870 0 7,870 0 0 0 0 0 7,870 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Interregional Program Page 82 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Interregional Program Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component County Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup Various Caltrans rail 2065J Capitalized maintenance (Capitol Corridor) 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065K Capitalized maintenance (San Joaquin Corridor) 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065L Capitalized maintenance (Surfliner) 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, PTA Projects, Intercity Rail 146,576 77,256 21,320 30,000 18,000 0 0 0 142,576 4,000 0 0 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: San Bemardino Caltrans 15 175N Rt 15 Gateway enhancements, Victorville (ext 6-14) Dec-14 Dec-14 2,446 2,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,446 0 600 0 400 Various Caltrans 2272 District 5 Vista Point Interpretive Displays (ext 6-14) Oct-14 Dec-14 2,107 2,107 0 0 0 0 0 10 693 390 540 10 464 Various Caltrans 4625 District 3 Wildlife Movement Study (ext 6-14) Nov-14 Dec-14 640 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 490 20 0 0 130 Los Angeles Caltrans 14 4326 Rt 14 Corridor Master Plan 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 5 4327 Rt 5 Corridor Master Plan 325 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 710 4336 Rt 710 Corridor Master Plan (South) 480 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 480 0 0 0 Riverside Caltrans 10 0013H Rt 10 Corridor Master Plan 279 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 Riverside Caltrans 215 0247R Rt 215 Corridor Master Plan 279 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 San Bemardino Caltrans 76F Aesthetic corridor master plan, urban, District 8 440 440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 440 0 0 0 SB/SLO Caltrans 166 2342 Rt 166 Cuyama Archaeological Collections 1,383 1,383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,383 0 0 0 Sierra Caltrans 89 8005 Rt 89 Wildlife Undercrossing and Fence 330 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 175 5 0 Various Caltrans 2127J Cultural Resource Database Legacy Data Entry 1,630 1,630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,630 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 101 2127M Rt 101 Geoarchaeological Study 358 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2127N Statewide Archaeological Re -burial Location Database 575 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 575 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2273 District 5 Corridor Master Plan 430 430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430 0 0 0 Subtotal Interregional Bike & Ped Projects 12,002 12,002 0 0 0 0 0 10 2,629 7,039 1,315 15 994 Total Programmed or Voted since July 1, 2014 1,100,681 PROPOSED 2016 PROGRAMMING CHANGES Highway Project Proposals: Butte Caltrans 70 9801 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Seg 1 (IIP) (14S-18) -13,100 -1,900 0 -11,200 0 0 0 -900 -10,000 0 -1,000 0 -1,200 Butte Caltrans 70 9801 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Seg 1 (IIP) (14S-18) 13,100 0 1,000 900 0 11,200 0 550 10,000 0 1,000 350 1,200 Butte BCAG 70 9801A Passing Lanes, Segment 2 (IIP)(pre-con) DELETE -1,500 0 0 -1,500 0 0 0 -1,000 0 0 -500 0 0 Fresno Caltrans 41 6705 Excelsior Expressway, widen to 4lanes DELETE -2,142 0 0 -2,142 0 0 0 -772 0 0 -1,000 -370 0 Humboldt Caltrans 101 72 Eureka -Arcata corridor improvement (IIP) -15,700 0 0 0-15,700 0 0 0 -15,700 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Caltrans 101 72 Eureka -Arcata corridor improvement (IIP) 15,700 0 0 0. 0 0 15,700 0 15,700 0 0 0 0 Inyo Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (IIP 40%) -46,820 -11,420 0 0 -35,400 0 0 -5,407 -32,160 -2,749 -2,051 -1,213 -3,240 Inyo Caltrans 395 170 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (IIP 40%) 11,420 11,420 0 0 0 0 0 5,407 0 2,749 2,051 1,213 0 Inyo Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(IIP 40%) -2,000 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 Inyo Caltrans 395 170A Olancha-Cartago Archaeological Pre-Mitigation(IIP 40%) 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 Kern Caltrans 14 8042A Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 1 (IIP 40%) -17,955 -5,520 -12,435 0 0 0 0 -3,800 -11,195 0 -1,000 -720 -1,240 Kern Caltrans 14 8042A Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 1 (IIP 40%) 5,520 5,520 0 0 0 0 0 3,800 0 0 1,000 720 0 Kern Caltrans 14 8042B Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%) -4,344 -1,300 -3,044 0 0 0 0 -2,204 0 0 -1,300 -840 0 Kern Caltrans 14 8042B Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%) close 479 479 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 479 0 0 Madera Caltrans 99 5335 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, widen to 6 lanes (IIP) DELETE -4,300 0 0 -4,300 0 0 0 -600 0 0 -3,200 -500 0 Madera Caltrans 99 6297 South of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, widen to 6 lanes (IIP) -1,500 0 -1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,500 0 0 0 Madera Caltrans 99 6297 South of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, widen to 6 lanes (IIP) close 413 0 413 0 0 0 0 0 0 413 0 0 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125W Willits Bypass Relinquishment (grf) (14S-15) -3,096 -170 -2,926 0 0 0 0 -170 -2,926 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125W Willits Bypass Relinquishment (grf) (14S-15) 3,096 170 0 2,926 0 0 0 170 2,926 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) -3,145 -170 -2,975 0 0 0 0 -170 -2,975 0 0 0 0 Mendocino Caltrans 101 125Z Sherwood Rd -Geometric upgrade (grf) (14S-15) 3,145 170 0 2,975 0 0 0 170 2,975 0 0 0 0 Merced Caltrans 99 0161 B Livingston 6-lane widening, southbound -38,950 -4,700 -300 0 -33,950 0 0 -200 -29,450 -1,700 -3,000 -100 -4,500 Merced Caltrans 99 0161 B Livingston 6-lane widening, southbound 5,000 4,700 300 0 0 0 0 200 0 1,700 3,000 100 0 Merced Caltrans 152 5707A Los Banos Bypass Segment 1 (IIP)(08S-09) -4,560 -4,560 0 0 0 0 0 -1,750 0 0 -2,540 -270 0 Merced Caltrans 152 5707A Los Banos Bypass Segment 1 (IIP)(08S-09) close 1,477 1,477 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1,437 35 0 San Benito Caltrans 156 297 4-lane expressway, San Juan Bautista (IIP) -61,986 -32,744 -29,242 0 0 0 0 -21,808 -25,822 -3,936 -5,450 -1,550 -3,420 California Transportation Commission Interregional Program Page 83 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Interregional Program Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component County Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con sup San Benito Caltrans 156 297 4-lane expressway, San Juan Bautista (IIP) 61,986 32,744 0 0 0 29,242 0 21,808 25,822 3,936 5,450 1,550 3,420 San Bemardino Caltrans 58 215C 4-lane expressway, Kramer Junction Phase 1 -194,838 -39,743 -155,095 0 0 0 0 -18,387 -139,427 -8,600 -8,000 -4,756 -15,668 San Bemardino Caltrans 58 215C 4-lane expressway, Kramer Junction Phase 1 (CMGC) 194,838 39,743 0 77,800 46,700 30,595 0 18,387 139,427 8,600 8,000 4,756 15,668 San Bemardino Caltrans 395 260B Fwy, expwy, Rt 15-Rt 58 (IIP) -4,000 -4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4,000 0 0 0 San Bemardino Caltrans 395 260B Fwy, expwy, Rt 15-Rt 58 (IIP) close 1,363 1,363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,363 0 0 0 Santa Barbara Caltrans 101 7101 South Coast HOV lanes, Bailard Av-Sycamore Crk (IIP) -7,000 -2,000 0 0 -5,000 0 0 0 0 -2,000 -5,000 0 0 Santa Barbara Caltrans 101 7101 South Coast HOV lanes, Ballard Av-Sycamore Crk (IIP) 4,000 2,000 0 or 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo Caltrans 46 0226J Cholame, convert to 4-lane expressway -88,000 -32,800 0 0 -55,200 0 0 -22,000 -46,000 0 -8,400 -2,400 -9,200 San Luis Obispo Caltrans 46 0226J Cholame, convert to 4-lane expressway 88,000 32,800 0 0 0 0 55,200 22,000 46,000 0 8,400 2,400 9,200 San Luis Obispo Caltrans 46 0226K Wye, convert to 4-lane expressway DELETE -19,100 0 0 0 -19,100 0 0 -7,000 0 0 -9,700 -2,400 0 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400E Tagus 6-lane southbound widening (IIP) -48,488 -3,488 0 -45,000 0 0 0 -1,850 -39,000 0 -1,200 -438 -6,000 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400E Tagus 6-lane southbound widening (IIP) 3,488 3,488 0 0 0 0 0 1,850 0 0 1,200 438 0 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400F Tagus 6-lane northbound widening (IIP) -4,337 0 0 -4,337 0 0 0 -2,900 0 0 -825 -612 0 Tulare Caltrans 99 6400F Tagus 6-lane northbound widening (IIP) 4,337 0 OK 825 3,512 0 0 2,900 0 0 825 612 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 14 4326 Rt 14 Corridor Master Plan -300 -300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -300 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 14 4326 Rt 14 Corridor Master Plan close 420 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 5 4327 Rt 5 Corridor Master Plan -325 -325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -325 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 5 4327 Rt 5 Corridor Master Plan close 429 429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 710 4336 Rt 710 Corridor Master Plan (South) -480 -480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -480 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans 710 4336 Rt 710 Corridor Master Plan (South) close 219 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 0 0 0 Riverside Caltrans 10 0013H Rt 10 Corridor Master Plan -279 -279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -279 0 0 0 Riverside Caltrans 10 0013H Rt 10 Corridor Master Plan close 201 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201 0 0 0 Riverside Caltrans 215 0247R Rt 215 Corridor Master Plan -279 -279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -279 0 0 0 Riverside Caltrans 215 0247R Rt 215 Corridor Master Plan close 139 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 San Bemardino Caltrans 76F Aesthetic corridor master plan, urban, District 8 -440 -440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -440 0 0 0 San Bemardino Caltrans 76F Aesthetic corridor master plan, urban, District 8 close 445 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 445 0 0 0 SB/SLO Caltrans 166 2342 Rt 166 Cuyama Archaeological Collections -1,383 -1,383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,383 0 0 0 SB/SLO Caltrans 166 2342 Rt 166 Cuyama Archaeological Collections close 1,411 1,411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,411 0 0 0 Sierra Caltrans 89 8005 Rt 89 Wildlife Undercrossing and Fence -330 -330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -150 -175 -5 0 Sierra Caltrans 89 8005 Rt 89 Wildlife Undercrossing and Fence close 732 732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 504 6 0 Various Caltrans 2127J Cultural Resource Database Legacy Data Entry -1,630 -1,630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,630 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2127J Cultural Resource Database Legacy Data Entry close 1,630 1,630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,630 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 101 2127M Rt 101 Geoarchaeological Study -358 -358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -358 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 101 2127M Rt 101 Geoarchaeological Study close 891 891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 891 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2127N Statewide Archaeological Re -burial Location Database -575 -575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -575 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2127N Statewide Archaeological Re -burial Location Database close 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2273 District 5 Corridor Master Plan -430 -430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -430 0 0 0 Various Caltrans 2273 District 5 Corridor Master Plan close 326 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 326 0 0 0 Subtotal Highway Proposals -167,410 -8,352 -207,804 16,947 -112,138 73,037 70,900 -13,671 -109,805 -3,965 -20,995 -3,994 -14,980 Intercity Rail Project Proposals: Ala/Santa Clara CCJPA rail 2090A Oakland to San Jose double track (segment 2A) DELETE -7,000 0 0 0 -7,000 0 0 0 -7,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065J Capitalized maintenance (Capitol Corridor) combine -4,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 0 0 0 -4,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065J Capitalized maintenance (Capitol Corridor) 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065K Capitalized maintenance (San Joaquin Corridor) combine -2,000 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065L Capitalized maintenance (Surfliner) combine -2,000 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 -2,000 0 0 0 0 Various Caltrans rail 2065 Capitalized maintenance in support of service expansion 5,000 0 - 0 3,000 2,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara Caltrans rail 2087 Siding upgrade and extension, SB Co. (12S-020) DELETE -12,450 0 -12,450 0 0 0 0 0 -12,450 0 0 0 0 Ventura Caltrans rail 2089 Seacliff Siding Upgrade and Extension -7,870 0 -7,870 0 0 0 0 0 -7,870 0 0 0 0 Ventura Caltrans rail 2089 Seacliff Siding Upgrade and Extension combine 20,320 0 0 0 0 0 20,320 0 20,320 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans rail 2098 Double Track near Northridge Station -63,500 -63,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 -63,500 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Caltrans rail 2098 Raymer to Bernson Double Track 40,500 0 0 0 0 0 40,500 0 40,500 0 0 0 0 California Transportation Commission Interregional Program Page 84 of 85 4/22/2016 2016 STIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION - COUNTY SHARE Does Not Include ITIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Interregional Program Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component County Agency Rte PPNO Project Ext Del. Voted Total Prior 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 R/W Const E & P PS&E RIW sup con Sup Los Angeles LACMTA gsep 2106 Burbank Airport/Rail Station Pedestrian Grade Sep. -7,000 0 0 0 -7,000 0 0 0 -7,000 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles LACMTA gsep 2106 Burbank Airport/Rail Station Pedestrian Grade Sep. 7,000 0 0 0 0 -...- 0 7,000 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Intercity Rail Proposals -32,000 -63,500 -21,320 -2,000 -13,000 0 67,820 0 -32,000 0 0 0 0 Total Proposed 2016 STIP Programming -199,410 Nominated Projects Not Included in Staff Recommendations Various Ca!trans rail) 2065i(Capitalized maintenance in support of service expansion incr 7,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 4,000 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 Notes: Revised ITIP adopted February 26, 2016 PPNO 2065 - later years can be programmed in a future STIP Balance of STIP Interregional Share Total Interregional Share, June 30, 2015 Total Now Programmed or Voted Since July 1, 2014 Unprogrammed Share Balance Share Balance Advanced or Overdrawn 1,017,340 1,100,681 0 83,341 Proposed New Programming -199,410 Interregional Program California Transportation Commission Page 85 of 85 4/22/2016 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 11, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on state legislation; and 2) Adopt the following bill position: a) SB 885 (Wolk) — Oppose. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update The Legislature continues its process of hearing newly proposed legislation. May is the month when several bills are vetted through the Appropriations Committees in the Assembly and Senate, a major hurdle before legislation can be debated on the floors of each chamber. The Commission's sponsored legislation all awaits hearings in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Meanwhile, the Commission is working with a statewide coalition on increasing the state's budget for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program, which remained flat for 10 years. After the printing of this agenda, the Governor will release the May Revise, which is an update to the Governor's State Budget proposal released in January. The May Revise marks the beginning of the final stretch of the budget process. This year, the Governor proposed major transportation funding items in the budget proposal, coinciding with the Governor's proposals made in the 1st Extraordinary Session on transportation funding. As of the printing of this agenda, little visible progress has been made towards an agreement in the Legislature on a transportation funding package. Staff proposes the Commission adopt an official position on one bill this month: Agenda Item 10 175 SB 885 (Wolk) — Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE This bill upends long-standing contracting practices on public works projects. Sponsored by the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), this bill would significantly increase litigation and financial exposure for entities that contract with design professionals by limiting the contractor's duty to defend claims against their projects. The sponsors argue it is unfair for a design professional to be required to defend other parties involved in a project. In practice, industry -standard indemnity agreements require the entire project team to defend against litigation. California courts have upheld that design professionals are subject to the same duties to defend lawsuits as all other parties who sign indemnity agreements with a project owner, such as the Commission. By forbidding project owners from requiring design professionals to defend litigation against projects on which these professionals worked, SB 885 will cause project owners to stand-in to defend the contractor's work and then retroactively seek compensation from the contractor if the plaintiff prevails and the design professional is found at fault. Moreover, the bill would create legal special treatment for a certain type of company, leading to inequity in who is responsible for defending lawsuits. The Self -Help Counties Coalition, the California Special Districts Association, and many other public entities stand in opposition to SB 885. The Commission relies heavily on the private sector for design services; this provides many benefits to the Commission, including, but not limited to cost savings, efficiencies, and risk transfer. SB 885 would diminish these benefits of contracting for design services by requiring Riverside County taxpayers to accept the costs and risks of defending a private contractor's work and then initiating further litigation to recoup those costs from the contractor. For these reasons, staff recommends an Oppose position on SB 885. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 10 176 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — April 2016 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 4 (Linder) This bill would bring truck weight fees back to transportation accounts and would prohibit weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds, and would also prohibit loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund. Died pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. (January 1, 2016) SUPPORT 3/11/15 AB 194 (Frazier) This bill provides a uniform, less -political process for tolling projects to be reviewed and approved by the state. Today, each tolling project must be approved via a bill in the Legislature. AB 194 provides the California Transportation Commission (CTC) with the authority to review and approve tolling projects, subject to specified conditions that provide for public transparency and collaboration between state and regional governments. The most important aspect of this bill is it rests decision -making authority over tolling projects with the governmental entity financially responsible for the project. The bill is sponsored by the Self -Help Counties Coalition, of which the Commission is a member. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State —Chapter 687, Statutes of 2015. (October 9, 2015). SUPPORT 3/11/15 AB 218 (Melendez) This bill allows for the relinquishment from state to local control of State Route 74 in the area between the cities of Lake Elsinore and Perris. This bill is sponsored by the county of Riverside and is championed by First District Supervisor and Commissioner Kevin Jeffries. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State —Chapter 553, Statutes of 2015. (October 7, 2015). SUPPORT 3/11/15 AB 914 (Brown) AB 914 authorizes San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to implement tolling on Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 within the County of San Bernardino. The bill contains language that requires cooperative agreements between SANBAG and the Commission prior to construction commencing on SANBAG's I-15 project. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State —Chapter 702, Statutes of 2015. (October 9, 2015). SUPPORT 4/08/15 177 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1171 (Linder) This bill authorizes the widespread use of an alternative contracting method known as construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) for projects not on the state highway system. Like design -build, CM/GC offers a streamlined private sector risk -transfer in project delivery that is capable of saving time and money on complex transportation projects. In short, CM/GC allows a project sponsor (such as the Commission) to enter into a preconstruction contract with a private entity to provide services that assist in preparing a design and schedule for the project, while reserving the option to allow that contractor to bid on the actual construction of the project. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State —Chapter 413, Statutes of 2015. (October 1, 2015). SUPPORT 4/08/15 AB 1569 (Steinorth) This bill provides an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or removal of transportation projects, such as highways,roads bridges, culverts tunnels,Reconsideration p p J g transit systems, bike, and walkways. Auxiliary lane additions also qualify for the exemption if it is within existing right of way and the areas surrounding the right of way are returned to their original condition after the project is complete. Although these projects are exempted from CEQA, the project sponsor must still notify public agencies with authority over the project and comply with any local laws. These projects are not exempted from the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and other state and federal laws. In committee: Set, second hearing. Failed passage. granted. (April 4, 2016). SUPPORT 4/13/16 AB 1780 (Medina) This bill, beginning in the 2016-17 fiscal year, would continuously appropriate 25 percent of the annual proceeds of the fund to the California Transportation Commission for the Sustainable Trade Corridors Program, which the bill would establish, thereby making an appropriation. From committee: Do pass and re -refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) Re -referred to Com. on APPR. (April 5, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 AB 1833 (Linder) This bill seeks three distinct policies that would create greater efficiencies in delivering transportation projects: Create an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans similar in concept to Riverside County's Multiple -Species Habitat Conservation Plan; remove the sunset date on California's participation in the federal program that allows the State to assume responsibility for review of federal environmental documents; and authorizes the State to participate in the new pilot program that allows States to substitute state environmental laws, such as the CEQA in lieu of NEPA. From committee: Do pass and re -refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 4, 2016). Re -referred to Com. on NAT. RES. (April 5, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 178 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1943 (Linder) This bill provides technical amendments to a previous bill sponsored by the Commission in 2014, SB 953 (Roth) providing the Commission with authority to establish parking regulations at its rail stations. Legislature edits to the bill's language prevented the Commission from enforcing parking regulations. AB 1943 clarifies the law with its amendments and provides the Commission with the power to establish and enforce its rules. The bill also allows the Commission to use a third -party private party to cite and tow violators. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. (April 13, 2016). SPONSOR 3/09/16 AB 2014 (Melendez) This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol, in coordination with the Department of Transportation and in consultation with regional and local entities, to complete a workload study to assess resource needs to supervise existing and expanded freeway service patrols identified by regional and local entities and to submit the study to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget. The bill would also require the departments to prepare their annual budget requests to the Legislature to accommodate the Department of the California Highway Patrol's oversight of increased freeway service patrols identified in the study. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re -refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (April 11, 2016). Read second time and amended. (April 13, 2016). SPONSOR 3/09/16 AB 2170 (Frazier) This bill is similar to AB 1780 (Medina) in that it directs new sources of funding to the successful TCIF program. AB 2170 directs federal formula funding for goods movement into the TCIF program. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, approved by Congress in 2015, creates a new formula funding program for freight projects. The funds are apportioned to the states. This bill ensures that funding is distributed equitably throughout the state where regional governments such as the Commission will have a voice at the table. From committee: Do pass and re -refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (April 4, 2016). Re -referred to Com. on APPR. (April 5, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 AB 2452 (Quirk) This bill proposes a helpful reform to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would limit the exposure of transportation projects to delays and costly litigation. AB 2452 by East Bay Assemblyman Bill Quirk would prohibit a judge from stopping the construction or implementation of a transportation project on solely on the basis of the project's potential contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Re -referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96. (April 11, 2016). SUPPORT 3/09/16 179 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 2783 (E. Garcia) This bill directs the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to amend the guidelines for the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. The AHSC program is funded from Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds (GGRF), otherwise known as cap and trade. AB 2783 allows projects in rural areas to meet lower housing density thresholds more consistent with rural development patterns. Current guidelines place rural areas of Riverside County at a competitive disadvantage for AHSC funding because Riverside County and the cities surrounding local rural areas are considered urban or suburban by the current program guidelines. Urban and suburban areas are required to have housing densities higher than what the market will typically support in a rural area. Measure version as amended on March 28 corrected. (April 4, 2016). SUPPORT IN CONCEPT, SEEK AMENDMENTS 4/13/16 SB 39 (Pavley) This bill raises the maximum number of green stickers issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which allow those vehicles to travel in high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes regardless of the number of occupants. SB 39 raises the cap to 85,000.. This bill represents a 112 percent increase in green stickers over a two-year period. The green sticker program expires on January 1, 2019. Referred to Com. On TRANS. (May 22, 2015). OPPOSE 6/10/15 SB 321 (Beall) This bill allows the BOE to adjust the price -based excise tax using a five-year forecast period instead of just a one-year period, thereby reducing the impact of short-term disruptions in fuel prices. SB 321 also extends the revenue- neutrality requirement to cover a three-year period instead of just one year, offering another opportunity for the BOE to smooth -out dramatic revenue swings. Finally, the bill allows the BOE to adjust the price -based excise tax every quarter, rather than once per year. Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Beall. (September 11, 2015). SUPPORT 3/11/15 SB 885 (Wolk) Sponsored by the American Council of Engineering Companies, this bill would significantly increase litigation and financial exposure for entities that contract with design professionals by limiting the contractor's duty to defend claims against their projects. By forbidding project owners from requiring design professionals to defend litigation against projects on which they worked, SB 885 will cause project owners to stand-in to defend the contractor's work and then retroactively seek compensation from the contractor if the design professional is found at fault. The bill would create legal special treatment for a certain type of company, leading to inequity in who is responsible for defending lawsuits. The Commission relies heavily on the private sector for design services, which provides many benefits to the Commission, including, but not limited to: cost savings, efficiencies, and risk transfer. SB 885 would diminish these benefits of contracting for design services by requiring Riverside County taxpayers to accept the costs and risks of defending a private contractor's work and then initiating further litigation to recoup those costs from the contractor. 1 nn Referred to Com on JUD. (January 28, 2016). OPPOSE Pending -LOV Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 901 (Bates) This bill creates an advanced mitigation program at Caltrans to account for the future impacts on the environment from transportation projects. This concept is similar to Riverside County's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the California Transportation Commission's annual report recommendations to the Legislature. SB 901 is similar to AB 1833 (Linder), which the Commission took action to support in March 2016, and is consistent with the Commission's legislative platform which encourages policies that expedite projects and reduce costs. SB 901 is slightly different in that it calls for $30 million to be taken from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and State Highway Operations Preservation and Protection (SHOPP) program to pay for the advanced mitigation program. April 5 hearing postponed by committee. (March 23, 2016). SUPPORT 4/13/16 SB 1197 (Cannella) This bill allows for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service beyond the boundaries of the three existing joint powers authorities (JPAs) that operate intercity rail service today. Current law establishes the Los Angeles -San Diego- San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) JPA and authorizes the state to contract with the JPA to operate the popular Pacific Surfliner Amtrak route. The Commission is a member agency of the LOSSAN JPA. This bill would provide the opportunity for the future Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass intercity rail corridor to be operated by LOSSAN. While the governance of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass service has not been fully vetted at this point in time, SB 1197 creates an opportunity that could be utilized in the future if it is determined by the Commission and the other LOSSAN member agencies it is best to incorporate the new corridor into the existing JPA, rather than creating a new agency or allowing Caltrans Division of Rail to operate the service. Set for hearing April 19, 2016. (March 30, 2016). SUPPORT 4/13/16 H.R. 2497 (Denham) H.R. 2497 creates a program to be administered by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that eliminates duplicative environmental reviews and approvals of transportation projects under state and federal laws. Importantly, the bill sets a 90-day deadline for the Secretary to render a decision on applications for the program. Referred to House subcommittee on Highway and Transit. (May 22, 2015). Referred to House subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. (May 22, 2015). SUPPORT 9/9/15 H.R. 4441 Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), known as the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 34 - 25. (February 11, 2016). SEEK AMENDMENTS 3/09/16 181