Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
01 January 9, 2002 Commission
COMM-COMM-00090 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may 6e taken on any item listed on the agenda 9: 00 a.m. Wednesday, January 9, 2002 CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 02-009, "RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GREENWALD AVENUE REALIGNMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FROM STATE ROUTE 74 TO WALLACE AVENUE. " Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) An Initial Study was performed which indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment (Attachment No. 1); b) A Negative Declaration is recommended based on the results of the Initial Study; and, c) The preferred alignment is Alternative No. 4 (30 miles per hour). 2) Conduct a hearing to consider the approval of the proposed Resolution to Adopt a Negative Declaration, including providing all interested parties of the affected property, their attorneys, or their representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution; 3) Approve Resolution No. 02-009, a "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Negative Declaration for the Greenwald Realignment Project from State Route 74 to Wallace Avenue" (Attachment No. 2); Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 9, 2002 Page 2 4) Approve the proposed Alternative No. 4 (30 miles per hour) for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue from State Route 74 to Wallac Avenue; and, 5) Direct Staff to file and post the Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21 152 of the Public Resources Code. 7. ADDITIONS/REV1SIONS (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 20 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending September and October 2001. 8B. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to approve: Page 22 1) The Mid -Year Revenue Projections; and, 2) Planning Budget Adjustment to reflect the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Planning Revenue and Expenditures. 8C. UCLA ARROWHEAD SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIP Page 24 Overview This item is for the Commission to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, scheduled for October 20-22, 2002, at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead, in the amount of $5,000. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 9, 2002 Page 3 8D. AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR THE RELOCATION OF A PACIFIC BELL LINE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 91 AUXILIARY LANE PROJECT Page 26 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) The expenditure of $123,060 for the relocation of a Pacific Bell line to allow for the construction of the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. Staff is also requesting additional funds of $26,940, for any change orders that may occur, for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000; and, 2) The Chairman to either enter into an agreement with Pacific Bell to perform the required Pacific Bell relocation work for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, OR transfer the funds to the State to perform the work using the existing Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1 132. 8E. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 28 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 8F. APPROVAL OF FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 02-45-040, BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES Page 48 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve entering into Agreement No. 02- 45-040, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, with the Department of California Highway Patrol to provide overtime supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol program in Riverside County. 8G. FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Page 54 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate the FY 01-02 Local Transportation Funds for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area as shown on the attached table. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 9, 2002 Page 4 8H. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY Page 5f Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the City of Cathedral City a five - month extension to May 31, 2002, to complete the Downtown Pedestrian Bridge project; and, a five -month extension to February 28, 2002, to complete the Agua Caliente School Area sidewalk project. 81. FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 TRANSIT OPERATORS' REPORT Page 60 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the FY 00-01 Transit Operator's Report as an information item. 8J. REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND DISBURSEMENT OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Page 64 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the City of Riverside's FY 01-02 Short Range Transit Plan; and, 2) Authorize the disbursement of $83,172 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost of repairs and preventative maintenance. 9. MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE (MSRC) RIDESHARE TO RAILS GRANT Page 65 Overview This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Amend the FY 01 /02 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to add the MSRC Rideshare to Rails Program; 2) Approve the agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the receipt of $96,982 of MSRC grant funds, subject to legal counsel review; and 3) Authorize the expenditure of $62,963 in Local Transportation Funds previously allocated. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 9, 2002 Page 5 10. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, FOR THE PROPOSED NEW 1,000 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE CORONA MAIN METROLINK STATION Page 74 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) The preparation and advertisement of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide engineering and environmental studies for the proposed new 1,000 space parking structure at the Corona Main Metrolink Station; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC staff, City of Corona staff, and Caltrans staff, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3) Negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultants) and return to the Commission with a contract recommendation. 11. UPDATE REGARDING FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS AND TEA-21 REAUTHORIZATION Page 78 Overview Cliff Madison, RCTC's Federal Lobbyist, will give the Commission an update on the status of Federal Transportation Appropriations and TEA-21 reauthorization. 12. PRESENTATION ON THE NATIONAL 1-10 FREIGHT CORRIDOR Page 79 Dilara Rodriguez of Caltrans will present an overview of the National 1-10 Freight Corridor Project. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 9, 2002 Page 6 15. CLOSED SESSION ITEM Conference with Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) Negotiating Parties: RCTC, County of Riverside, Caltrans, and California Private Transportation Company Case Numbers: RCV048430 and RCV049988 16. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 13, 2002, Chancellor's Conference Room, University of California @ Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, December 12, 2001 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman William Kleindienst at 9:00 a.m., in the Chancellor's Conference Room at the University of California at Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Daryl Busch Bob Buster Percy Byrd Chris Carlson-Buydos Juan DeLara Bonnie Flickinger Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Ameal Moore Tom Mullen Gregory S. Pettis Robin ReeserLowe Ron Roberts Janice Rudman Greg Ruppert Robert Schiffner Gregory V. Schook John F. Tavaglione Alfred W. Trembly Placido L. Valdivia James A. Venable Mike Wilson Roy Wilson Robert Crain Harvey Gerber Anne Mayer John J. Pena Jack van Haaster Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 2 Chairman Kleindienst requested a moment of silence to honor the passing of Commissioner Phil Stack from Rancho Mirage. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Kleindienst called on the following who submitted a public comment card: A) R.A. Barnett, Chairman of the Highgrove Area Redevelopment Committee, County Service Area 126, presented a Resolution recommending the Riverside County Transportation Commission grant a Metrolink Station stop at Highgrove when planning the future track upgrades for Metrolink service on the San Jacinto Branch Line. He also provided copies of the Resolution to the Commissioners. B) Letitia Pepper, resident of the City of Riverside, expressed her concern that the flood control project at Islander Park that was recently approved by the City of Riverside will have a negative impact on future improvements to extend the Metrolink route into the Box Springs area and questioned RCTC's involvement. Eric Haley, Executive Director, responded that RCTC has not been involved in any meeting with the City of Riverside or UCR regarding the flood control project and planning efforts have not been finalized for the route. Commissioner Bob Buster requested staff provide the Commission with a report on the impact the flood control project will have on the future alignment of the Metrolink route. C) Denis Kidd, Vice Chairman of the Highgrove Area Redevelopment Committee, County Service Area 126, expressed his support of the Resolution for a Metrolink Station stop at Highgrove. D) Keri Then, resident of the City of Moreno Valley, expressed her support for the preferred alternative for the Moreno Valley - San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor for approval by the Commission today. However, she cautioned the passage of hazardous materials through the tunnel. E) Richard Block, founder of the Box Springs Mountain Conservation Association, expressed his concern the preferred alternative for the Moreno Valley - San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor, specifically the environmental impacts on the water flow. F) Letitia Pepper, resident of the City of Riverside, expressed her opposition to the preferred alternative for the Moreno Valley - San Bernardino Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 3 County CETAP Corridor, noting that she feels it makes more sense to improve and expand existing roadways than spend funds on an expensive new roadway. G} Claire Harrington, resident of Reche Canyon, expressed her support for the preferred alternative for the Moreno Valley - San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor and opposition to any expansion of Reche Canyon Road due to the negative impact on the area resident rural lifestyle. She also believes funds should be allocated to improve existing highways. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 14, 2001 MIS/C (Schook/Buydos) to approve the November 14, 2001 minutes as presented. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted revisions to the following agenda items: A) Agenda Item No. 8, "Disposition Development Agreement No. 02-25- 038 for the Acquisition of Land for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station". B) Agenda Item No. 6, "2002 RCTC Commission/Committee Meeting Calendar and the Palo Verde Valley Area Unmet Transit Needs Hearing". 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Lowe/Pettis) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULES REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending October 31, 2001. 6B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2001. 6C. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Approve increasing the budget for equipment maintenance costs in the Motorists Assistance Department from $901,000 to $1,018,000. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 4 6D. REGIONAL ARTERIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Approve increasing the expenditure budget for the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial program by $4,800,000. 6E. FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AUDIT RESULTS Receive and file Ernst and Young's Audit report for FY 00-01. 6F. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROPOSED 2001-2002 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Approve the proposed 2001-2002 State and Federal Legislative programs. 6G. 2001 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE Approve the Riverside County 2001 Congestion Management Program update. 6H. POSSIBLE EXCHANGE OF FUNDS WITH SCAG FOR THE MAGLEV HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY Approve exchanging up to $406,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, on a dollar for dollar basis, with SCAG for FHWA Planning funds with the following conditions: 11 That the current RCTC/SCAG funding agreement be amended to include the exchange of these dollars; 2} That SCAG's Overall Work Program be amended to augment the amount of FHWA Planning funds identified for CETAP by the exchanged amount; 3) That the RCTC 2% funds be disbursed upon our receipt of the funds from the State and upon the receipt of the FHWA funds from SCAG; and, 4) That this action is administrative and does not change the Commission's neutral position on high-speed rail technology. 61. EXPANSION IN SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO CLEAR THE MEASURE "A" STATE ROUTE 79 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN NEWPORT ROAD AND KELLER AVENUE 1 y Approve the concept that the environmental document will have to cover an expanded scope in order to deliver for construction the Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 5 Measure "A" SR 79 widening project between Newport Road and Keller Avenue (the Project); 2) Authorize staff to complete negotiations on acceptable scope of Environmental Document to permit the construction of the Project with both the County of Riverside and Caltrans; and, 3) Bring back agreements to the Commission for final review and approval that provide a level of surety that the County of Riverside will assist in paying for both the increase in scope of the environmental document and for any construction outside the limits of the original Project. 6J. APPROVAL OF SERVICES CONTRACT AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-917 WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 02-31-917 for real property services with County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division. The contract will be for labor to obtain property right -of -entry for an amount not to exceed $19,800 with a contingency amount of $2,000 for a total not to exceed value of $21,800; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 6K. STATE ROUTE 74 REALIGNMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WITH DMJM + HARRIS 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 02-31-035, Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-2127, with DMJM + Harris to perform Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling for a Base Amount of $52,410, and a contingency amount of $7,590 for a total contract amount not to exceed $60,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 6L. APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-037 BETWEEN CALTRANS AND RCTC FOR STATE ROUTE 60 HOV PROJECT DESIGN 11 Approve entering into Cooperative Agreement No. 02-31-037 with Caltrans for the design work of the SR 60 HOV project from 1-215/ SR 60 Interchange to Redlands Boulevard; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the final changes required; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 6 6M. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-036, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO DMJM + HARRIS ENGINEERING DESIGN CONTRACT NO. RO-2027, FOR ADDITIONAL RAILROAD FINAL PS&E DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE DOWNTOWN CORONA METROLINK STATION 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 02-33-036, Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. RO-2027, for DMJM + HARRIS to provide additional railroad survey and Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Design Services, for the proposed new Corona Main Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, for an amount not to exceed $44,337. The total value of the original contract, all amendments, this agreement and the contingency shall not exceed $1,289,337; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 6N. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 60. FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 COMMUTER RAIL SRTP AMENDMENT: DISCONTINUE RIVERSIDE LINE SATURDAY SERVICE; ADD START-UP OF THE RIVERSIDE-FULLERTON-LOS ANGELES SERVICE; INCREASE LTF ALLOCATION BY $500,000; AND ALLOCATE $330,000 IN STA FUNDS Amend the FY 01-02 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to: 1) Discontinue the Riverside Line Saturday service; 2) Amend the FY 01-02 Metrolink budget for the start-up of the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line peak period service; 3) Increase the LTF allocation by $500,000; and, 4) Allocate $330,000 in STA funds. 6P. PROVISION OF RIDESHARE SERVICES IN THE INLAND EMPIRE 1) Direct staff to adopt a course of action to transition services currently contracted from Southern California Rideshare for Inland Empire residents to RCTC's existing Commuter Assistance Program; 2) Approve issuing a Request for Proposals for the procurement of software for a Ridematching Software System; and, 3) Direct staff to establish a cooperative process between other transportation agencies in Southern California to ensure that Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 7 rideshare matching and transit routing services offered by various. counties are coordinated to maintain regional rideshare coverage for area commuters. 6Q. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001- 2002 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SERVICE CHANGES TO ROUTES 7,8,22, AND 27 Amend Riverside Transit Agency's FY 01-02 Short Range Transit Plan for service changes to Routes 7, 8, 22 and 27. 6R. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENT FIXED ROUTE SERVICE 1 } Amend Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan; and, 2} Allocate $156,700 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost of implementing a fixed route service. 6S. VETERANS SERVICE UPDATE - PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Receive and file the update on transportation for veterans in the Palo Verde Valley. 6T. CETAP SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT - ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED DURING SCOPING PROCESS 11 Receive and file the Scoping Summary Report; and, 2) Direct staff to send letters to those who suggested new or modified alternatives to inform them of the status of their suggestion. 6U. UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RCTC'S TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT CONDUCTED FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997-1998, 1998-1999, AND 1999-2000 Receive and file the progress report on implementing recommendations from RCTC's Triennial Performance Audit conducted for FY 97-98, 98- 99, and 99-00. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 8 - 6V. 2002 RCTC COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR AND THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING 11 The schedule of Commission and Committee meetings for the 2002 calendar year; and, 2} The Unmet Transit Needs Hearing for the Palo Verde Valley Area to be held March 7, 2002, and to appoint Commissioners to act as the hearing board. 7. MORENO VALLEY - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Commission Bob Buster expressed his belief that these projects should be presented with a dependable revenue source to show the Commission and the public they can be funded without detracting from internal improvements on other existing roadways in Riverside County, demonstrating realistic transportation planning. Commissioner Robin Lowe concurred with Commissioner Buster, noting however that the future cannot be predicted therefore making it difficult to identify funding sources at this time. She believes that Commission is proving what is logical and needs to move forward. Commissioner Tom Mullen concurred with Commissioner Lowe's comments and highlighted that over the next several months the Commission will make public the plans to address the County's transportation needs with the renewal of Measure "A". Eric Haley added that a proposal from the Sales Tax Ad Hoc Committee will be presented at the February 13, 2002 Commission meeting that will include substantial project development monies for all of the corridors. MISIC (Mullen/Lowe) to: 1) Provide concurrence on Alternative 1, a connection between SR 60 in the vicinity of the 1-215 junction in Riverside County, with California Street in Loma Linda and Redlands in San Bernardino County, as the preferred alternative for this corridor; 21 Provide additional arterial improvements in the area to be identified through further study as a way to provide further mobility and safety benefits; and, 31 Direct staff to proceed with development of an Environmental Impact Report on the corridor, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 9 8. DISPOSITION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 02-25-038 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION MIS/C (Mullen/Venable) to: 11 Make a finding "That no other reasonable means of financing the purchase of the property and the construction of the buildings, facilities, structures, and other improvements, are available"; and, 21 Approve the Disposition and Development Agreement No. 02-25- 038 between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the City of Corona Redevelopment Agency for the acquisition of land for the construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. The value of this agreement is $457,381 plus closing costs. Total costs of acquisition is not to exceed $ 500,000. Eric Haley commended the City of Corona for partnering with RCTC on this station. Abstain: Rudman 9. 2001 BEACH TRAIN PROGRAM SUMMARY M/SIC (Mullen/Byrd) to receive and file the 2001 Beach Train Program Summary as information item. 10. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND SELECTION OF CORONA/MORENO VALLEY/ RIVERSIDE REPRESENTATIVE AND ADDITIONAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Al Commission Mullen nominated Commissioner John Tavaglione as Chair, Commissioner Ron Roberts as Vice Chair, and Commissioner Roy Wilson as Second Vice Chair. M/S/C (Lowe/Schook) to elect the officers of the Commission - John Tavaglione as Chair, Ron Roberts as Vice Chair, and Roy Wilson as Second Vice Chair. B1 Commissioners Ameal Moore and Bonnie Flickinger informed the Commission that representatives of Corona/Moreno Valley/Riverside met and they elected Commissioner Jan Rudman to be their representative to the Executive Committee. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 12, 2001 Page 10 C) Commissioner Buster stated that the County Board of Supervisors appoined Commissioner Tom Mullen to fill the County's vacant seat on the Executive Committee. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A) Commissioner . Lowe thanked Chairman Kieindienst for providing outstanding leadership during the past year. B) Commissioner Dick Kelly thanked staff for the Holiday Breakfast. C) Chairman Kleindienst wished everyone Happy Holidays. A. Eric Haley provided an update of the events the coming year and extended his gratitude to Commissioner Anne Mayer for her efforts during the past year. 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEM Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: Riverside Community College - President or Designee Property located up to twenty (20) acres immediately adjacent to the existing La Sierra Rail Station. There were no announcements to the public. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University of California at Riverside, 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside, California, 92501. spectfully submitted, Nate K•:-n av:r Clerk o the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution No. 02-009 "Resolution to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Greenwald Avenue Realignment Project Located in Riverside County, California, from State Route 74 to Wallace A venue a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) An Initial Study was performed which indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment (Attachment No. 1); b) A Negative Declaration is recommended based on the results of the Initial Study; and, c) The preferred alignment is Alternative No. 4 (30 miles per hour). 2) Conduct a hearing to consider the approval of the proposed Resolution to Adopt a Negative Declaration, including providing all interested parties of the affected property, their attorneys, or their representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution; 3) Approve Resolution No. 02-009, a "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Negative Declaration for the Greenwald Realignment Project from State Route 74 to Wallace Avenue" (Attachment No. 2); 4) Approve the proposed Alternative No. 4 (30 miles per hour) for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue from State Route 74 to Wallace Avenue; and, 5) Direct staff to file and post the Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A " State Route 74 widening project is from Dexter Avenue in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. At its September 13, 2000 meeting, the Commission committed to be the lead agency for the Greenwald Avenue realignment project at its connection to SR 74, fund the additional cost of 000001 r 1 k the project, and complete the project no later than two years after the completion of the SR 74 widening project. Staff is moving as quickly as possible on this project so that it can be constructed in conjunction with the SR 74 widening project. By combining the projects, the Greenwald/Meadowbrook intersection with SR 74 will only have to be constructed once. This will reduce the overall cost of performing this project that is now required. If the Greenwald realignment project is delayed, an interim intersection will be constructed at SR 74 and demolished later when the final Greenwald Avenue realignment project can be constructed. The existing Greenwald Avenue intersects existing SR 74 at a high skew angle. Current Caltrans design standards require streets intersecting the state highway to be at approximately 90 degrees for safety concerns. SR 74 will not be realigned in the vicinity of the Greenwald Avenue. Therefore, Greenwald Avenue must be realigned to intersect SR 74 at approximately 90 degrees to comply with Caltrans design standards and for safety considerations. DISCUSSION: 1) An Initial Study was performed by LSA Associates to evaluate the environmental impacts to the properties in the vicinity of four proposed Greenwald realignment alternatives. The initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed realignment alternatives either have No Impact, Less Than Significant Impact, or Less Than Significant Impact . With Mitigation Incorporated with regards to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. (See Attachment No. 2 - Summary Initial Study/Negative Declaration). Mitigation measures for impacts with Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated include dust control, noise abatement, relocation assistance for displaced property owners, and traffic control. 2) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration has been prepared based on the findings of the Initial Study. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Negative Declaration was advertised and circulated for a minimum 30 day public and agency review period beginning on December 3, 2001. 3) Four alignment alternatives were proposed and presented to the local community, Riverside County Transportation Department, the County Supervisor s office, and Caltrans. The four alternatives include alignments based on design speeds ranging from 25 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. The alignments alternatives are as follows: 000002 Alternative No. 1 - Greenwald Avenue would be realigned to intersect Senola Avenue approximately at the midpoint between existing Greenwald Avenue and Irma Street, and then curve to the southwest to join existing Greenwald Avenue north of Wallace Avenue. Existing Greenwald Avenue would end at its connection to Senola Avenue, and the existing connection of Greenwald Avenue to SR 74 would be eliminated.. Alternative No. 2 - Greenwald Avenue would be realigned to follow the alignment of existing Irma Street beginning midway between Senola Avenue and Wallace Avenue. Slightly north of Wallace Avenue, Greenwald Avenue would begin a transition from Irma Street to the west to connect to existing Greenwald Avenue at Suzan Street. The existing connection of Greenwald Avenue to SR 74 would be eliminated, and Greenwald Avenue would end at its connection to Senola Avenue. Senola Avenue would be cul-de-saced east of Greenwald, and Irma Street would be cul-de-saced south of Senola Avenue and north of Wallace Avenue. Alternative No. 3 - Alternative was included in the approved Project Report for the SR 74 widening project. This alternative would realign Greenwald Avenue to connect to SR 74 approximately 250 meters (820 feet) south of the existing SR 74/Greenwald Avenue intersection. Existing Greenwald Avenue would end at its connection to Senola Avenue, and the existing connection of Greenwald Avenue to SR 74 would be eliminated. Alternative No. 4 (Preferred) - This alternative would realign Greenwald Avenue at Meadowbrook Avenue to intersect SR 74 at a 90 degree angle. Realigned Greenwald Avenue would proceed easterly from SR 74, curve to the south bisecting the lots (approximately in the middle) along the east side of Greenwald Avenue, cross Senola Avenue approximately 75 meters (250 feet) east of existing Greenwald Avenue, and curve southwest to reconnect with existing Greenwald Avneue one lot south of a Verizon communications building. Existing Greenwald Avenue between SR 74 and Senola Avenue would be blocked off. To allow continued access to the Verizon communications building, the existing intersection of Senola Avenue with Greenwald Avenue would be reconstructed in a knuckle configuration, and Greenwald Avenue would be cul-de-saced at the driveway to the Verizon parcel. Alternative Analysis: • Alternative No. 1 was withdrawn from further consideration due to high right-of- way acquisition costs. 000003 " A l t e r n a t i v e N o . 2 w o u l d d i s p l a c e s e v e r a l r e s i d e n c e s a l o n g I r m a S t r e e t , r e s u l t i n g i n a s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , A l t e r n a t i v e N o . 2 w o u l d r e r o u t e t r a f f i c f r o m e x i s t i n g G r e e n w a l d A v e n u e t o I r m a S t r e e t ( b e t w e e n S e n o l a A v e n u e a n d S u s a n S t r e e t ) , r e s u l t i n g i n n o i s e i m p a c t s t o s e n s i t i v e r e s i d e n t i a l r e c e p t o r s a l o n g I r m a S t r e e t . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , l o c a l r e s i d e n t s v o i c e d s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n t o A l t e r n a t i v e N o . 2 , a n d i t w a s d r o p p e d f r o m f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . " A l t e r n a t i v e N o . 3 w a s a l s o w i t h d r a w n f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n d u e t o t h e p o t e n t i a l s a f e t y i s s u e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t w o c l o s e l y s p a c e d , s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s a l o n g S R 7 4 a t r e a l i g n e d G r e e n w a l d A v e n u e a n d e x i s t i n g M e a d o w b r o o k A v e n u e . " A l t e r n a t i v e 4 ( p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e ) - - A s a r e s u l t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d f r o m h o l d i n g t w o p u b l i c m e e t i n g s a n d s e v e r a l m e e t i n g s w i t h t h e C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e s t a f f , S t a f f h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p r e f e r r e d a l i g n m e n t i s A l t e r n a t i v e N o . 4 w i t h a d e s i g n s p e e d o f 3 0 m i l e s p e r h o u r . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e h a s s t r o n g s u p p o r t f r o m b o t h t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e a n d m e e t s t h e p r o j e c t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . L e t t e r s o f s u p p o r t f o r t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e a r e a t t a c h e d f r o m b o t h t h e C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e a n d C a l t r a n s . A t t a c h m e n t s : 1 . S u m m a r y I n i t i a l S t u d y / D r a f t N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n 2 . R e s o l u t i o n N o . 0 2 - 0 0 9 3 . L e t t e r o f S u p p o r t f r o m C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e 4 . L e t t e r o f S u p p o r t f r o m C a l t r a n s 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 Y e a r : F Y 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 A m o u n t : $ 9 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 S o u r c e o f F u n d s : B o n d P r o c e e d s G L A N o . : 2 2 2 - 3 1 - 8 1 3 0 1 ( 3 0 0 1 - 1 6 ) B u d g e t A d j u s t m e n t : N F i s c a l P r o c e d u r e s A p p r o v e d : D a t e : 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUMMARY INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION GREENWALD AVENUEIMEADOWBROOK AVENUE REALIGNMENT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction RCTC is the Lead Agency for preparation of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the proposed Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue realignment project. The project is located in unincorporated Riverside County, California. The Greenwald Avenue realignment project is being coordinated with the State Route 74 (SR 74) widening project, which consists of widening SR 74 from two to four lanes (two lanes in each direction) with a continuous left turn lane in the median, between Dexter Avenue (at 1-15) and 7th Street in the City of Perris. The SR 74 widening project is addressed in a separate environmental document (Route 74 Widening NDIFONSI, Caltrans, 1994, and Environmental Reevaluation, 2000). Members of the Meadowbrook Community requested the Commission to reconsider the treatment of the Meadowbrook and Greenwald intersection. The original plan environmentally cleared in 1994 was to correct the high skew of the Greenwald alignment by providing a radius at the connecting point with SR 74 and making a 90 degree connection to the SR 74 center line. This realignment of Greenwald forced the connection with SR 74 to move about 1000 feet away from the existing Meadowbrook intersection resulting in a split connection. An alignment that brings both intersections together at the same location and provides for the realignment of Greenwald is outside of the area environmentally cleared in 1994 for the SR 74 project. At the September 13, 2000 the Commission approved the following: • Funding the costs associated with a separate project for the realignment of Meadowbrook/Greenwald Avenues. The estimated cost is an additional $475,000. • Being the lead agency to perform PULE and delivery of the realignment project would begin within 2 years of the end of construction of the SR 74 Measure "A" project. • Authorized the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with Caltrans consistent with the above conditions pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review. Letter agreement with Caltrans is attached. The IS/ND evaluates the proposed Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue realignment project, consisting of realigning Greenwald Avenue to connect with SR 74 at a 90 degree angle. The project objectives are to: 1) improve the safety of the Meadowbrook Avenue/Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR 74; and 2) improve site distance for vehicles traveling north on Greenwald Avenue and east on SR 74. Funding for the Greenwald Avenue realignment project will be provided from Measure "A" funds through RCTC. Greenwald Avenue is a designated County road. However, since funding for the project is provided through RCTC, RCTC will be the Lead Agency for preparation of this IS/ND document for CEQA compliance. Because Greenwald Avenue connects to SR 74, which is a State highway, Caltrans will provide oversight and be a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the portion of the project within the Caltrans right-of-way. The technical studies for the proposed project were prepared in accordance with RCTC and County of Riverside guidelines. Since no federal funds will be used for the project, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance is not required. Description of Alternatives The layouts of the four (4) project alternatives that were considered during the Environmental evaluation are attached. The two alternatives described below are included for further consideration by the Commission. Two additional alternatives (Layouts 1 & 2) were also considered by RCTC. These alternatives were withdrawn from further consideration due to right- of-way impact, safety issues, and resident opposition. No Build Alternative. Either no realignment of Greenwald Avenue would occur, and the existing condition would remain unchanged, with no improvement to sight distance for vehicles traveling east on SR 74 and Greenwald Avenue. Or, the improvements as approved in the 1994 Route 74 ND/ FONSI could be implemented (see Layout for Alternative 3 attached), if approved by the Commission and Caltrans. Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 4 would realign Greenwald Avenue at Meadowbrook Avenue to intersect SR 74 at a 90 degree angle. Realigned Greenwald Avenue would proceed east from SR 74, curve to the south bisecting the lots (approximately in the middle) along the east side of Greenwald Avenue, cross Senola Avenue approximately 75 meters (250 feet) east of existing Greenwald Avenue, and curve southwest to reconnect with existing Greenwald Avenue one lot south of the Verizon phone station. Existing Greenwald Avenue between SR 74 and Senola Avenue would be blocked off. To allow continued access to the Verizon phone station, the existing intersection of Senola Avenue with Greenwald Avenue would be reconstructed in a knuckle configuration, and Greenwald Avenue would be cul-de-saced at the driveway to the Verizon parcel. 000006 Conclusions Environmental topics analyzed for the project, as required by CEQA, are categorized as follows with respect to their potential impact on the environment: • No Impact. Agricultural resources, geology and soils, mineral resources, and recreation. Less Than Significant Impact. Aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Air quality and noise. Mandatory Findings of Significance With implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the project: • The project does not have the potential to degrade the duality of the environment. • The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, cumulatively considerable. • The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Public Involvement A public information meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. on August 21, 2001, at the Goodmeadow Community Center at 21565 Steele Peak Drive, Perris, California. The meeting was attended by representatives from RCTC, the County of Riverside, SC Engineering, and LSA Associates, Inc. Three alternative were presented to the public: Alternative 1 - Realigned Greenwald Avenue with two 500-foot reversing curves and kept Greenwald Avenue at it's present location opposite Meadowbrook Avenue Alternative 2 - Realigned Greenwald Avenue, utilizing the existing Irma Street Right of Way and keeping Greenwald Avenue at it's present location opposite Meadowbrook Avenue Alternative 3 - Realigned Greenwald Avenue, approximately 900-feet west of existing Meadowbrook Avenue. Approved in 1994 ND/ FONSI. 000007 Approximately 30 residents and concerned parties attended the meeting and had the following concerns regarding the project: • number of traffic accidents at the Greenwald/Meadowbrook State Route 74 intersection, • property impacts, • timely notification of affected property owners, • relocation process for displaced residents, • timing of construction, and • potential changes to the neighborhood character due to shifting traffic patterns In general, the majority of the residents objected to all of the alternatives, due to relocation of existing residents and the traffic impacts associated with converting Irma Street to a Secondary Highway. RCTC and the County agreed to develop a minimal impact alternative to keep Greenwald Avenue opposite Meadowbrook Avenue. A second public information meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. on September 25, 2001, at the Goodmeadow Community Center at 21565 Steele Peak Drive, Perris, California. The meeting was attended by representatives from RCTC, the County of Riverside, and SC Engineering. Again, approximately 30 residents and concern parties attended the meeting. Alternative 4 (Minimal Impact Alternative), along with the previous three alternatives (described above), were presented to the public. At this public information meeting, the public supported Alternative 4. 000008 L 3ALLVNa311b (HdW L£) 1N3WN011V3d 311N3AV 011/MN33aJ 600000 �lr O\ J D Da i� .. A. 3toli q lie Cr q.......z„,.,.........- Lee. 7.,.......,„ It 0 �% �' • • • ! . ``-1' fte. liter~! 1��'l ii 1 R ` ..~•J MB MUM OVA‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ �- :. • ''.� i q �� '!1 ��;!' �< <�, — * 0 1• .� F, will 1 i� = D lawn , M11'mm�_ mps ,,.��A_ s rr;� jai 1•., . yiO --- tz MINIPEFIN © ��._-_ isl;i/,apis i=r4l22ff.iL!.i2ef.a..14l i.�pi•.• „ �ti Q �1'u r i� �� i ,n�l�' 1�' � It }'1�� • ,�/. �� ��j''r.•, ' Z 3ALLVNE131111 (HdW 917) 1N31AINJ1111'3a 311N3AV 01VMN331:10 C ti :«rr*Tnim =.�1i�'►y_�`i�'� air.".-��^. `:� ��.....�� �� �. MOOG (1.E10d31:1 1.33rOlid) 3ALLVNI:1311V IN3INNOI1V38 3fIN3AV 01VMN33Ele -,- iefore ,....-,p• ,,.."";:,i ; ";ZZ140,1r01104 la • •1.•••.i. :'•1'..-.., -115_,.4.14,0111 ty. .........„• .Q Al• . • - • • • , ..:..• • .. - • TM MLA' 111 1 1 MI &1St& ( •"- '11 -. ' ° . '.. ‘f '---- ' ........; .•. .. . ' '.... ... P .\ .114, WiliAllialkOKOMEDIMailltj NMI ... ' id . _ . 0 NiiiMIMnIMMV14igiiiiIK WitritN0k.i. ' -;•.':-1 ' • . a f ' 414 3.111Mr•NIMMilini.-- -. _- i -.711- ---..1 .-...---- • - — -.11111P.."-.4%►NW, 4:2316 •••••=1........ - - -. - ....- .W. -...,. 7_-------- --21,111 %-1`7:!IT.;;T:Ti. lira Mt 1:171=1:-12- rims mings.,;iiiiiri gWg,..1_..• ,-----,iiiii-664;--- . , -....... 4 1..f ;:: 11/ a.: e- ft ti 3AIIVNa311d (HdW OE1 1N3WNDI1V311 3nN3Ad 4:11VPAN33b0 "wry er -.— _— �— .....—,r�i L�r i. 1,.; ��lf� �w.iissorr�w ri��, 'Via.. 11. E —�'�i' i � [� s. _ o 0 000 Agreement No. 02-31-041 Agreement for the Realignment of Greenwald Ave with State Route 74 Between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and Caltrans District 8 This agreement documents the understanding between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and Caltrans to postpone the final realignment of the Greenwald Ave connection to State Route 74 (SR 74) as a project that will be separate and distinct from the current Measure "A" highway widening project between 1-15 and Th Street in the City of Perris. The postponement will allow the consideration of a new alternative that will both maintain the existing Meadowbrook/Greenwald connection at the same intersection and realign Greenwald to be at a 90 degree intersection with SR 74. The conditions required of RCTC to delay construction of the Greenwald Avenue realignment while moving forward with the construction of the remainder of the Measure "A" SR 74 improvement project include the following: • RCTC will be the lead agency for the revised realignment project for the Greenwald Avenue connection at SR 74. • RCTC will fund one hundred percent (100%) of all costs for environmental evaluation, preliminary and design engineering, right of way acquisition, construction and construction engineering. • Construction of the realignment of Greenwald Avenue shall begin within two years of the end of construction of the Measure "A" SR 74 project provided that environmental clearance and all permits can be obtained from the responsible agencies. RCTC will make every effort to obtain said permits in a timely fashion to support the start of construction within the above timetable. The Measure "A" project is currently scheduled for completion in summer of 2003. 000013 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 02-009 RESOLUTION NO. 02-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPROVING THE GREENWALD AVENUE/MEADOWBROOK AVENUE REALIGNMENT PROJECT AND RELATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission {'Commission'; is proposing to engage in a project to realign Greenwald Avenue at Meadowbrook Avenue to intersect State Route 74 ('SR 741 at a 90-degree angle {'Project 1; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed Project is to improve the safety of the Meadowbrook Avenue/Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR 74. The objectives of the proposed Project are to: (1) realign Greenwald Avenue to intersect with SR 74 at Meadowbrook Avenue at a 90-degree angle; and (2) improve site distance for vehicles traveling north on Greenwald Avenue and east on SR 74; and WHEREAS, Commission staff members have determined that approval of the Project is subject to the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( `CEQA') and as the lead agency, prepared an Initial Study (1S 1 to analyze all potential environmental impacts. Since Greenwald Avenue connects to SR 74, which is a State highway, the California Department of Transportation ('Caltrans 1 will provide oversight and be a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the portion of the Project within Caltrans right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from implementation of the Project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, Commission staff determined that a Negative Declaration ('ND 1 should be prepared; and WHEREAS, the ND was prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the Caltrans Environmental Handbook (for the portion of the Project within Caltrans right-of-way) and the Commission' s local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Commission made the IS/ND available to the public, Responsible Agencies and other interested agencies for review and comment by posting and publishing notice of its availability as follows: The IS/ND and Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND (N01) was sent all local agencies, recorded at the County of Riverside Clerk' s Office, and made available for review at the RCTC office and Lake Elsinore and Perris Libraries on November 30, 2001; by mailing of the NOI to owners of contiguous properties and other interested parties along the alignment OOOn4 alternatives on November 30, 2001; by advertisement in the local newspaper on December 17, 2001; and by submission to the State Clearinghouse for publication as follows: 15 copies of the Notice of Intent sent to the State Clearinghouse on November 30, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Commission received, considered and prepared responses to comments received from the public and other interested agencies on the IS/ND; and WHEREAS, Commission has carefully reviewed the IS/ND and all other relevant information contained in the record of proceedings regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. Compliance with CEQA. As the decision -making body for the Project, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the IS/ND and the administrative record of the proceedings for the Project. The Commission finds that the IS/ND contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Commission further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the Caltrans Environmental Handbook (for the portion of the Project within Caltrans right-of-way) and the Commission' s local CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. Findings on Environmental Impacts. Based on the IS/ND, the administrative record and all 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 IS/ND 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 significant environmental impacts. The Commission finds that the IS/ND contains a complete, objective and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. SECTION 3. Adoption of Negative Declaration. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the IS/ND and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. 000015 SECTION 4. Approval of the Project. The Commission hereby approves the Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue Realignment Project as generally described in this resolution. SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk within five (5) working days of Project approval. SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the Commission' s offices, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, CA 92501. The custodian for these records is Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Commission. This Resolution shall be effective as of the date of approval and adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9' day of January, 2002. John F. Tavaglione, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 0000.16 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE yr ru v Vd1%.011)E TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY _ Zfransportation Department 057740 December 18, 2001 Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment Study Dear Mr. Sugita: David E Barnhart Director of Transportation Thank you for your transmittal of a copy of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for our review. The Transportation Department is in support of the Proposed Alignment (originally identified as Alternate 4) on this project. This alignment will be the more feasible and cost effective of the alternatives to implement given the constraints of existing adjacent land use, while still providing a substantial improvement over the current condition. -- - - - - — - We are finalizing our review of the environmental document and will provide you with any comments that we may have shortly. in the meantime, please do nothesitate to contact me at 955-6800 should you wish to discuss this matter further. ,-• . r ncerely Juan C. Perez Road Division Engineer JCP:bjl cc: Supervisor Tom Mullen, Fifth District Attention: Wally Rice George Johnson aVFMMwpt.w anWriGt•Orelra a w.uowweok.wva 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside. California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-672I 000017 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM CALTRANS STATE 0r CALWRPflA--RI ISTIISS TRANSPORTATION Arn MEMO Ar' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 464 West Fourth Street NSS 1229 UN BERNesRDINO, CA 92401-1400 eHONE (909) 383-6480 FAX (909) 383-6938 TiY (909) 383.6300 December 19, 2001 Hideo Sugita Deputy Director 5560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: SR-74 from Dexter Avenue to Wasson Canyon Road FA 0$-464121 Greenwald Avenue Realignment Submittal Dear Hideo: We have reviewed your recommended alternative 4 forl the reali 79/Greenwald Avenue intersection. We concur with the concept of the re as shown by the attached drawing. Our final approval of the realignme given when more detailed engineering is received. As you are aware, approval of the realignment of Greenwald Avenue is County of Riverside jurisdiction. If you have any questions or inquiries, please feel free to contact me at 1)09) 3 6480. Sincerely, SAFAA BAYATI Project Manager Program/Project Management SB/ja 'Calm:ins batprouts Inaba* scrods California' 1i )00018 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 41, MEADOWBROOK ROADS DISTRICT 057743 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 December 12, 2001 Re: Notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration. We the appointed members of County Service Area 41, Meadowbrook Roads District. Recognize that a negative declaration is in order to our satisfaction at the location intersection of Greenwald & Highway 74. For the conformance of Caltrans requirements it is recognized that no environment impact of significance will occur. Signatures of Advisory C.S.A. 41 Bonnie Blassengame Grace Givens air Doris Needles 000019 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution No. 02-009, "Resolution to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Greenwald Avenue Realignment Project Located in Riverside County, California, from State Route 74 to Wallace Avenue" Subsequent to mailing of the Agenda for the January 9, 2002 Commission meeting, staff received responses/comments on the Negative Declaration for the Greenwald Avenue Realignment Project. The responses/comments are summarized in this information package and included for the Commission's review. DISCUSSION The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Negative Declaration was advertised and circulated starting on November 30, 2001 for a minimum 30 day public and agency review period, which began on December 3, 2001. All comments were to be received by January 2, 2002. The Notice was transmitted to all interested parties of the affected properties, their attorneys, or their representatives and Local and State agencies. Staff has received the following responses/comments: 1) Acknowledgement of Receipt from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Negative Declaration were transmitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to all agencies and departments, which are identified on the Acknowledgement of Receipt. 2) Approval of the Negative Declaration from the County Service Area 41, Meadowbrook Roads District. 3) Comments from Department of Toxic Substance Control along with staff's responses. 4) Comments from California Department of Transportation District 8, which were received on January 4, 2002, along with staff's responses excluding a response to comments on the Air Quality Analysis portion of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). Staff is currently working with Caltrans to respond to these comments, and will present them to the Commission at the January 9, 2002 Commission Meeting. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), summarized in Attachment No. 1 identified various mitigation measures, which need to be implemented as part of Resolution No. 02-009. In response to this requirement, staff developed a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included herein as Attachment No. 5. CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed and responded to all comments received on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration. Staff recommends the Commission Approve Resolution No. 02-009, a Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Negative Declaration for the Greenwald Realignment Project from State Route 74 to Wallace Avenue. Attached for the Commission's information is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by Resolution No. 02-009. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gray Davis GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH State Clearinghouse 05"7744 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: December 17, 2001 TO: Bill Hughes Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: GreenwaId/Meadowbrook Realignment SCH#: 2001121007 Steven A. Nissen DIRECTOR This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: December 3, 2001 Review End Date: January 2, 2002 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 8 Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning Department of Fish and Game, Region 6 Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse wiII provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. CC' �. /ski% . 6e,t(e) 1,d er-e- 1400 TENTH STREET P.0 BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812.3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-M8 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLi ARINGHOUSE.FITML ATTACHMENT NO. 2 County Service Area 41, Meadowbrook Roads District Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 December 12, 2001 Re: Notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration. We the appointed members of County Service Area 41, Meadowbrook Roads District. Recognize that a negative declaration is in order to our satisfaction at the location intersection of Greenwald & Highway 74. For the conformance of Caltrans requirements it is recognized that no environment impact of significance will occur. Signatures of Advisory C.S.A. 41 65-J--0""-r'43L- Bonnie Biassengame Grace Givens It» . 4-frg-dek) Doris Needles ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Comments from Department of Toxic Substance Control District and Staff Response Department of Toxic Substances Control Winston H. Hlckox Agency Secretary California gnvironrnentnl Protection Agency December 13, 2001 Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue 05' 173'7 Cypress, California 90630 Mr. Bill Hughes Riverside County Transportation Commission 3660 University Avenue, Butte 100 Riverside, CaWomb 921101 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GREENWALD/MEADOWBROOK REALIGNMENT PROJECT (BCH #20011210071 Dear Mr. Hughes: The Department of T+ordc Substances Control (DTBC) hes received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above -mentioned Prefect. Based on the review Of the document, DTSCs comments are as follows: Grey Davis Govenier 1) The NO needs to Identify and determine whether current or historic uses have resulted In any release of hazandous wastes/substances at the site. 2) The ND needs.* klentlty any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed Project arse. For an identified Mites, the ND needs to evaluate whether condibone at the site pose a throat to human health or the environment. 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required Investigation and/or remedisrllon for any site that may require remedlation, and thy+ Oovorrtmenk iewimel iu Wwroe appr ' regulatory oversight. ' 4) The Hazendt7rriWesie NO& Site Aseessment (HWISA) report, dated November 2, 2001, recommended soils testing for aerially deposited lead from past vehicle emlesbns in Areas of disturbed soils located along the shoulders of Route 74, Greenwald Avenue. Senala Avenue and other local Streets In areas where construction would occur. Instead, the Intdel Study/Draft Negative Declaration (IS/DND), dated November 29, 2001, stares that the EDR records search and the elks survey did not newel any evidence of hazardous materials located within the project limits. The ND is incomplete without Implementing the above reoornmendabon. ThIP onsfily Chad w MOO M anti! taw Cieweinfee Nees le ego innsdsre seta+ to mauve energy consumption. Nita wr or MPS voll,Trai eve IMAM domed ants atsaronly cats, air Dar VorWih rt wwwaitoc.oLOoK • Printed en iteevpled Paper Mr, 6111 Hughes December 13. 2001 Page 2 5) The HWt8A wort, dated November 2, 2001, recommended surveys for hazardous materials/wastes at the proposed relocated residences and affected business properties prior to demolition and/or construction (e.g., asbestos, lead based paints, propane tenks, etc.). Instead. the IS/DND shows that based on the results of than site survey, no mitigation measures are required. if a survey is already conducted, the survey report has not been provided to DTSC with other documents. 6) if the prooposed project is planning to demolish any old buildings during the development, investigate the preserve of lased paints and asbestos containing materials (ACItis) in the currently existing bulkiing structures. lithe presence of lead or ACMs is wed, proper pravaudons should be taken during any future demolition activities. Additionally, the oonterninants should be remediated in compliance with the California environmental regulations. 7) The ND should be "vitiated whether the project area is used for agricultural purposes the past` lithe property is used for agricultural purposes, onsite soils may contain pesticide residues due to the pest and current uses of the project site for vegetation or agriculture. The site may have contributed to soil and/or groundwater contarnkration. Proper Investigation and remedial actions should be conducted at the site prior to the new development. 8) If the prepaid paged Is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may feli under the "Bader Tone of a Contaminated Property.` Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction lion if the proposed project is co a "Border Zone Property.' 9) Any hsatedmueviaaaalsshnaterials encountered during construction tion should be local, In accordance with l, , and federal regulations. Priorto Initiating any construction aactivMes, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastealsubstances exists at the site. if so, War studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extfmt of the contendlneiion. Also, it is necessary to estimate the potential threat to public health andlbr the environment posed by the site. It may be necessary to determine Nan saaedlted response action is requited to reduce exisdng or potential threats to public health or the environment if no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be Implemented In oomplisnce with state reguletkans and policies rather than excavation of sail prior to any assessments. 10) All environmental l Inesedgation and/or remedlaadon should be conducted under a Worlcplan which Is approved by a regulatory agency who has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanups. Compte s eharacterizadon of the sod Is Mr. ®III Hughes December 13.2001 Page 3 needed prior to any excavation or removal action. 11) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling Is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. if the soil is contaminated, properly dispose the soil rather than placing It In another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Ala°, if the pmfact Is planning to import soil for backfiiling the areas excavated. proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. • 12) if during conetruadan of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction in the eras should cease and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If d is domed that contaminated Boll and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation andlbr remedlation will be conducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). Also, DTSC is adminiriering the $116 million Cleanup Loons and Environmental Assistance to Neighborhoods (CLEAN) program, which provides low -Interest loans to investigate and clean tap hazardous materiels at properties where redevelopment is likely to have a beneiidM impact to a community. The CLEAN program consists of two main components: low interest loans of up to $100,000 to conduct PEA. of underutilized properties: and loans of up to 2.5 million for the cleanup or removal of hazardous materiels else at underutilized urban property- These loans are available to developers, businesses, schools, and local governments. For additional infonntien on the VCP or CLEAN program, please visit DTSC's web site at vyww,dta ..c:a.aov. It you would like to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abolitions, Project Manager at (714) 454.5476. Sincerely, r� A44/I r Haissam Y. Saloum. P.L. Unit Chef Southern California Clrwnip OperatieOns Branch Cypress Office cm See next Ms Mr. Bill Hughes December 13, 2001 Page 4 cc: Governoes Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Boer 3844 Sacramento, Caitiomie 96812-3044 Mr. GueMherW. Market, Chief Planning end :Err ironmental Analysis Section CE0A neohirg Outlier Department of Tat* Substances Control P.O. Box MO Sacramento, CallIbmie 958124806 1Fro R• na Roa st. 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator MEMORANDUM December 20, 2001 To: Mike Davis bile: Riv-74 RCTC/Bechtel 9 547797s Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment ubjeet: Comments to the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) letter dated December 13, 2001 and Draft Initial Site Assessment by LSA dated November 2, 2001, pTSC Lytter: 1. Based on the ISA there were no historic uses that would have resulted in a release a of hazardous waste, this should be stated in the ND. 2. The ND should list the hazardous waste/material sites that were identified, their location in relation to the project and what their status is currently, and identify whether they are affected by the project. 3, Because there are no sites in the project are that would be affected this is not necessary. 4. An aerial deposited lead (ADL) survey was performed by the consultant GEOCON ENV. a survey report was provided to Caltrans October 3, 2001. The analysis of the soils detected background levels (non -hazardous) of lead in this area. The ISA should be changed to reflect the findings of the survey and no further action regarding ADL is necessary. 5. Surveys for the presence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint are normally performed by Right of Way property management. The surveys are performed after acquisition of the parcels, the abatement will not affect the appraisal of the property. Surveys and abatement demolition are done in compliance with State environmental regulations. Permits are filed with the local Air Quality District for demolition of structures. A survey report of these materials would not be available until after right of way acquisition see #5 above. Historical information discussed in the ISA did not reveal agricultural usage on this site. 8. As of October 2001, there are no known contaminated sites within 2,000 feet of this project. Mike Davis December 20, 2001 Page 2 9, If hazardous waste is encountered during construction of this project, all work within the potentially contaminated area, would be halted. Appropriate CaIvens personnel will work with the appropriate State and Local Agencies to develop a plan to assess and investigate the site and to determine corrective measures for the protection of public health and the environment. This is the common procedure for all construction projects. 10. see #9 above. 11. Depending on the final disposition of excavated soils, testing may be required by the accepting landfill, This would be done by the construction contractor as the soils are disposed of. 12. see *9 above. Until the type of waste and affected media are determined, we cannot determine the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. Drikft ISA &view: The potential for hazardous waste involvement determination is "yes" based on the need for an ADL survey and asbestos and lead paint survey. The ADL survey has been completed with no hazardous concentrations of ADL present and the removal of asbestos and lead paint do not affect the appraisal of the property a survey for asbestos and lead paint will be done after acquisition. 1 think, if there are no other identifiable hazardous waste concerns, the ISA determination should be "NO". 1 also think the ISA should discuss the Meadowbrook Market which is located across SR-74 to the north of the project. This market has had in the past 2 underground storage tanks. The tanks have been removed for approximately 10 years (according to current tenant) but I think the property owner did riot report this to the county because the government records data base search dots not reveal that the tanks were removed. The ISA and the ND should discuss this issue and state that this site is not within the project limits and it will not be affected by the project. Please call me at 909.381.5917 if you have any questions. L 5 �1 ONE PART. PLAZA. SUITt 500 IRVINI. CALIRORNIA 92614 OILIER OPiiCEs: FT. COLLINS 949.553•1:1666TRL BERKELEY RIVERSIDE 949.553.8076 !AI PT. RICIIIIONn ROCKLIN 057772 December 21, 2001 DEC 2 6 2001 Mr. Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. 3ECHTEL CORF Department of Toxic Substances Control 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Subject: Response to December 13, 2001, Letter Regarding the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment Project (SCH #2001121007) Dear Mr. Salloum: Thank you for your comment letter of December 13, 2001, regarding the Draft IS/ND and the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for hazardous waste for the Greenwald/Meadowbrook realignment project. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) has directed LSA to respond to your letter on their behalf. The responses provided below are numbered to correspond with the comment numbering in your letter. I have attached a copy of your letter for ease of your review. These responses were compiled in coordination with Rosanna Roa, Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator. Response to Cormnent #1. The IS/ND includes a statement on page 34, item 5.7 d) as follows: "The EDR records search and site survey did not reveal any evidence of hazardous materials located within the project limits." The EDR records search of databases of local, state, and federal agencies, in addition to the results of the visual site survey and the review of historical aerial photos of the site (dating back to 1953), are the basis for the conclusions of the ISA report. A complete list of the agency databases searched as part of the EDR records search is included in the ISA report. The 1S/ND will be revised to state that, "based on the results of the hazardous waste ISA prepared for the project, there were no known historic uses and there are no known current uses that have resulted in a release of hazardous waste." Response to Comment #2. Table A on page 7 of the ISA lists two sites with underground storage tanks (USTs) within 0.4 kilometer (1/4 mile) of the project area. These sites are: 1) Meadowbrook Market, located less that 0.2 kilometer (1 /8 mile) west of the project site at 27215 State Highway 74 (in the past, this market had two underground storage tanks, which were removed approximately ten 12/21/01«P:1SAE9301GreenwaldUtTCADTSC.Iesponse.letter.wpd» 6. x-4ize-Jj /) 7. 1..)?‘ PLANNING j ENVIRONDINTAL sclENcas DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. years ago, according to the current tenant); 2) Canyon Lake North Mobil, located less that 0.2 kilometer (1/8 mile) west of the project site at 27323 State Highway 74 (this site could not be located during the site survey and appears to have moved). Based on information provided in the EDR records search, these sites are not within the project limits and have no potential to affect the implementation of the proposed project. There are no hazardous waste sites that have the potential to affect the proposed project. Response to Comment #3. The IS/ND includes a statement on page 34, item 5.7 d) as follows: "The EDR records search and site survey did not reveal any evidence of hazardous materials located within the project Iimits." Therefore, no investigation or r+emediation is required. Response to Comment #4. An aerially deposited lead (ADL) survey was conducted by GEOCON Environmental, and a copy of the report was provided to Caltrans on October 3, 2001. The analysis of the soils detected background levels (non -hazardous) of lead in the project area. The IS/ND and the ISA will be revised to reflect the findings of the survey. No further action regarding ADL is necessary. Response to Comment #5. Caltrans procedures specify that surveys for the presence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint are normally performed by right-of-way property management. The surveys are performed after acquisition of the parcels. Abatement, if required, will not affect the appraisal of the property. Surveys and abatement of properties scheduled for demolition are done in compliance with State environmental regulations. Permits are filed with the local Air Quality District for demolition of structures. A survey report of these materials would not be available until after right-of-way acquisition. The IS/ND and the ISA will be revised to include this information. Response to Comment #b. See the response to comment number 5 above. Response to Comment #7. As discussed in the ISA on page 8, a review of historical aerial photographs of the project site dating back to 1953 did not reveal any evidence that the site has been used for agriculture. The IS/ND will be revised to include this information. Response to Comment #8. Based on a visual survey of the project site conducted on June 4, 2001, and an EDR database search conducted on March 27, 2001, there are no known contaminated sites within 2,000 feet of the proposed project. Therefore, the project area does not include any "Border Zone Properties." 12/2I/01«P:1SAE9301GreenwaldlRTCsIDTSC.response.letter.wpdN2 LSw ASSOCIATES, INC. Response to Comment #9. Based on a visual survey of the project site conducted on June 4, 2001, and an EDR database search conducted on March 27, 2001, there are no known contaminated sites within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. The standard procedure for all construction projects, if hazardous waste is discovered during construction, is to halt all work within the potentially contaminated area. The appropriate Caltrans and County personnel would be notified and would work with the appropriate local and state agencies to develop a plan to investigate and assess the site and to determine corrective measures for the protection of public health and the environment. Page 9 of the ISA report states, "A site specific health'and safety plan and hazardous waste/material handling and disposal procedures plan shall be followed for any previously unknown hazardous waste/material encountered during proposed project construction." The IS/ND will be revised to include information regarding these standard procedures. Response to Comment #10. See the response to comment number 9, above. Response to Comment #11. Depending on the final disposition of the excavated soils, testing may be required by the accepting landfill. This would be done by the construction contractor as the soils are disposed of. The IS/ND and the ISA report will be revised to include this information. Response to Comment #12. See the response to comment number 9, above, regarding the procedures that will be followed in the event that previously unknown hazardous waste/material is discovered during construction of the project. If you have questions regarding the above responses to your comments, please contact me at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. King Thomas Project Manager Attachment: cc: Mike Davis, Riverside County Transportation Commission Rosanna Roa, Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator Sal Chavez, SC Engineering 12/21 /01«P:1SAE9301GreenwaldlRTCADTSC.response.ietter,wpd0 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Comments California Department of Transportation District 8 and Staff's Responses LETTER 4-1 liege ved Jar•-yd-0 02:29Pm from 90787792000 + SSA FAX TPRF.[ r1; oa' ?err' 9097817.92000 RTV CC TRANSP c Omm 9WS.3836494 GF1.1"RA0-15 SNA stet or Mur4r~Pl"..-ateMeea tie NIPPITMX. Apo Ma,rvtrs4esrrnr DEPAR'TMIN'T OP "MAINIIPMATION DOOM 446 kV. ooth Mrersl, O. weer eon Poona SOWS flame. pas (9001103.4460 homy 4. 2002 i Mr, Hideo Swans RiversideC gip'' atioutCeesmWion 3360 Mime* Mime Riverside, CA Mel page Z PAGE e2 227 POi JPN 04 ' 0e 14 : ry4a CWAY DAVIS, ar+rwer Stik ct; OreenvieWhileisastireok Maw liaafignment Project Dery Mr. Wilts: Cola W Bnvirortreestel Slues* Stencil received mime environmental stedieo for the above project from LSA. We lava rrvirwod thas st 44 and have the following comments; NATURAL ENYIMWIOANT INDY • *Meads C; Cdt auiiee Clershaespot Butterfly is listed twice. • Appendix C: leant a impend expleinble the abbreviations for the Stews Deeignatm Column. cLTURAL MOW= ASIOnlecENT • Prepared CSQA gay' Enclosed am the b idel 3iee Aueesaeeet commas from Rosanna Rot; to Mike Davis, Also. Er olo ad are Wa Air Quality Aug* and Noise impact Mark commas from TM/ /cults to Tony Chung. eav{eaenental adios wete reostved without a cover letter. In order co fia#litete Anure reviews, we weuld apleesiete that ail review requests be accompanied by a oover imp? iettuis us know to whoa we Amid lead site omen* with, deadlines. rutd erutl+ other peft nett information. Tit kr the orperemity to review tlra avironamnal studio! fig the Oreeowal NMeelr et oek itegigomeet Project, 4-1 A 4-1 B 4-1C Hece+vcd J4n-04-07 O2:29pm frpm 90478T792000 LSA f:AXTHREE 11/0 /20B2 01:52 909787792300 RIV CO TRANS? COMM 98S38364941 okirRws el4,4 <'e7 baz 3•lr.iikb0 &Ws 01J{Wd2 Page 3 PAGE 83 JAN %14 'a ;a: : If you have my quereone, please mew me at (909) 383.6379 or Aiiaiis Colburn ac (909) 388- 703 S. Sincerely. Ortgrinal of ta# MA1UE 3. Wit Chief' Environmental bean II" Eaueionwe C ; Kng Theses (LSO R1ia t7 arir) Eli Husk. Midis» LETTER 4-2 Recc ived Jern-04-02 0^: 291:rr., 01/04/2n2 ai:52 90479?792000 si ceei'ColifOnmit Memorandum from 9097MS2000 — LSA FAX THREE Pit/ CO TRA1 SP COMM Page F PA3E 05 9093836494 CALTRANS OLle 211a.3 A37707 JA'N e4 'OL 14: J, To Tony Chung t,.sA MANI/. Trslsplieslioa arrd rig,1u;lafr+ DAM' 144.02 RII.: TWA W4743 as. South df ate 74 KP 33.540 Greenwald intersection prom Department'? Tven*ellegen Environmental Engineering Me 624 sia}•ei: Review Noise Impel* iireliyele Report Greenwalc/Meedowbroce Realignment b0R? The fallowing ate our comments: Lander "EseeutM Summery` on page t, at the end of ►ttie third paragraph, pleat* note that although there N no substantial increase In nivitis level, the noise levels e1 receivers 5 and 10 •mired the Noise Abatement Cr♦tKM and IS 'kith nolae mitigation must b>q conslasred. Under'Future Wee Environment, impact* and considered sb eternerstlmittgation" on page 18, third beretlreph. the lest sarttence, again noise mitigation must be considered. Under Cor►aniation NOW on peps 14, the third paragraph, the word `Spy:Moe:ione", change to previsions, After the third pereg►eph. include end ■flow the written Section of 7-10/! of the Caltrarts 41er1panM Provisions. Reference Pipes 4, Receivers: Is there en WW1 receiver at location A-57 if to, why Is it not shown on the planirrtetry, is It a hill or partial pike of plOpertyf If then le no home at tie ignition why wog it measured and usvd as a mee04A0 Plsaee provide tapopsphie Tapping showing elevations clearly. 7an�ka Chief. EnEngineering 4-2A 4-28 4-2C 4-2D 4-2E 8.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTRODUCTION The letters in this section of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (1S/ND) include public comments on the Draft IS/ND for the proposed Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue Realignment project. The Draft IS/ND was circulated for a public review period that began on December 3, 2001, and ended on January 2, 2002. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commentors and to indicate where and how the IS/ND addresses pertinent environmental issues. The Draft IS/ND and this responses to comments report collectively comprise the Final IS/ND for the Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue Realignment project. Any changes made to the text of the Draft IS/ND or its amendment correcting information, data, or intent, other than minor typographical corrections or minor working changes. are noted in the Final IS/ND as changes from the Draft 1S/ND. Revised text is noted by a vertical line in the right margin. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially, and each issue within a comment letter, if more than one, has a letter assigned to it. References to the responses to comments identify, first the letter number and second the comment letter (2A, for example). CALTRANS COMMENT ON THE DRAFT 1S/ND Written Commentor 4-1. Marie J. Petry, Chief Environmental Studies, Caltrans, District 8 4-2. Tony Louka, Office Chief. Environmental Engineering, Caltrans, District 8 I':.SAE9301CireenwaIcI RTCs1RTC.wpd « 1/4/021> ] LSA ASSOCIATES. IN('. JAN( AFC,' 20112 INITIAL STUDY,NEGATIYE DECLARATIO.\ GREENWALD:MEADOW'©ROOA REALIGNNIENT klvEkSIDE COUNTY, CALIEokNIA Letter 4-1 COMMENTOR: Marie J. Petry, Chief Environmental Studies, Caltrans, District 8 DATE: January 4, 2002 RESPONSE Response 4-1 A The IS/ND_ Appendix C. has been revised to list the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly once, instead of tw ice. Response 4-1 B The 1S/ND, Appendix C. has been revised to include a legend explaining the abbreviations for the Status Designation column. Response 4-1 C All of the comments in Rosanna Roa's December 20. 2001, memorandum to Mike Davis have been responded to (see responses to Letter No. 2) in the Response to Comments section of the IS/ND. In addition, a response letter was mailed to the DTSC on December 21, 2001. The Draft IS/ND was mailed to Caltrans District 8 on November 30, 2001, with a Notice of hntent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (N01). The NOI requests that comments be sent to the Riverside Count\ Transportation Commission no later than January' 1, 2002 (close of the public comment period). In the future we will submit environmental documents for review through Caltrans Project Management (unless we are notified otherwise) and we will also notify the Caltrans Environmental Studies Department that a document(s) has been submitted for their review and comment. Also, a cover letter that explains to whom to send the comments, together with the deadline for receiving continents, will accompany future submittals. I': S:1E930'�(.;reenwaid\RTC'slRTC.wpd <W4/02)) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, .1A,NrARY 20(12 INITIAL STUDY'NEGATIVE DECLARATION CREENWALD,MEADOWBROOR REALIGN IEVT RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Letter 4-2 COMMENTOR: Tony Louka, Office Chief, Environmental Engineering, Caltrans, District 8 DATE: January 4, 2002 RESPONSE Response 4-2A The Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment project, with the exception of the Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR-74, is located in unincorporated Riverside County outside of Caltrans right-of- way (please note that noise receiver 10 is located outside of Caltrans right-of-way and was evaluated using Riverside County guidelines). The noise analysis was prepared pursuant to County of Riverside guidelines_ which do not require consideration of noise abatement unless the project related noise increase exceeds the threshold of 3 dBA. Per the results of the noise modeling conducted for the proposed project, the project related noise level increase is 1 dBA. Therefore, per County guidelines, consideration of noise abatement for receiver 10 is not required. Full acquisition of the parcel where receiver a is located is required_ and no noise mitigation is necessary. Response 4-2B See response 4-2A above. Response 4-2C The word "Specifications" has been changed to "Provisions" as requested. The Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment project, with the exception of the Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR-74, is located in unincorporated Riverside County outside of Caltrans right-of- way, and the noise analysis was prepared pursuant to County of Riverside guidelines. All pertinent County guidelines will be followed during construction. Response 4-2D Full acquisition of the parcel where receiver 5 is located is required, and no noise mitigation is necessary. Response 4-2E Figure 4 will be updated to show topographic data as requested. P:'SAE9311..(ireenwald1RTCs'aTC.wpd (<1/4/02» 3 STAU OF CAl,Fpr1RNrialSPORTATI]N AND WWICNC: ACitirSCV UltAY UA\'l.1 Clore= DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 8 464 West Fourth Street. 64 Floor MS 824 San Bontatrdinu, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-6385 FAX (909) 383-5975 January 4, 2002 Mr. Tony Chung LSA Associates One Park Plaza, #500 Irvine, CA 92614 (94.9) 553 0666 (office) (949) 553 8076 (fax) Re: Review of Air Quality Analysis for Greenvvald/Meadowbrook Realignment in Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Chung: The above referenced project prepared by LSA Associates for SC Engineering has been reviewed. The comments provided below are request for changes to the report. Please incorporate the following comments into the air quality analysis: 1) The attainment/non-attainment designations listed ort page 10 of the report delineates the status of the carbon monoxide criteria pollutant as follows: CO: Nonattainment for fedend (Serious Classification) standard only (State nonattainrncnt status applies only in Los Angeles County part of the South Coast Air Basin). Please revise the language to more accurately reflect the project vicinity as provided below: CO: Nonanairunent for federal standards (Serious Classification). Attainment far state standards in the Riverside County portion of the South Coast Air Basin. 2) Pages 10 and 13 provide a description of each pollutant. Are these pages providing a description of the criteria pollutants? If so, a description of lead should be included and the description for reactive organic carbon (ROC) should be deleted since ROC is not a criteria pollutant. 3) Figure 4 highlights the project location relative; to the SCAQMD air monitotng sites. Table B displays the data obtained from the Riverside-Rubidoux monitoring site for various criteria pollutants. However, the Perris site appears to be substantially closer to the project location than the Riverside-Rubidoux site. Data obtained from the monitoring site nearest the project location is preferred over more distant sites because it is usually more representative of air quality conditions. Please provide an explanation as to why the data obtained from the Riverside-Rubidoux site is more representative than the Perris site, or use the data from the Perris site in lieu of Riverside-Rubidoux. -Co!traits improves mnbaitv across Cakfornla" o TP. 1 i'1-1'3" LSA Asso;:inteS Grrenwatr2/Meadowbrook Real irune nt Page 2 of 2 4) It cannot be overstated that when performing a project -level carbon monoxide analysis, figure 3 (Local CO Analysis) of the Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Protocol) trust be strictly adhered to. This is necessary to justify the type of analysis selected whether it is a simple qualitative or a complicated computational analysis (i.e., CALi1VF, 4). A CALINE 4 analysis was performed for this project but absent of the guidelines called for in figure 3. Please provide the justification for the need of a CALM 4 analysis with respect to figure 3 of the Protocol. For your reference, the microscaie CO modeling description and result that was included in the submitted attainment/maintenance plan for South Coast Air Basin is provided as an attachment. S) Pages 18 and 19 cite the use of ENTAC7F1.1 as the model used to generate emission factors for the CALINE 4 analysis. However, the report does not state the source of the input parameters used to determine the emission factors. Also, the results of the emission factors need to be included in Appendix A of the report. 6) The most recently approved plan and program is the 2001 RTF/RTIP. The horizon years used in both documents is year 2025. Please revise the CALEN'E 4 analysis to include the horizon year of 2025. Analyzing interim years, years between opening to traffic and horizon year, is optional. 7) Figure 5 of the report is a reap location of sensitive receptor locations. The receptor locations selected are inappropriate for a CALINE 4 air quality analysis. Please review page B-17 of the Protocol and reselect appmpriate receptor locations. 8) Page 31 of the report contain the qualitative PM10 analysis. Please be advised that the US EPA has changed PMIo 24-hour standard form. It has been revised from the 1-expected exceedance to a 99th percentile form, averaged over 3 years (EPA's Revised Particulate Matter Standards Fact Sheet, p. 5 of 6. 1997). This information is available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/naagsfm/pmfact.html. The qualitative PMIo analysis needs to be modified in accordance to the new EPA standard. As mentioned earlier, the Perris monitoring site is substantially closer to the project location than the Riverside-Rubidoux site and is preferred. If you have any question(s), please call me at (909) 383-6385 or Sean Yeung at (909) 388 7146. Sincerely, La„ Tony Louka Office Chief, Environmental Engineering Altar hmanl: Srpplemrotal Modeling information fee Los Apples area Inte rSeCtiun (8 pages), C. M. Petry. A- Colbam SY,sy file 'outran* unproves mobIllad across California" ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program s.a.A.Ss, 1ATF.9.1N(' Nlitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Greemlald/Meadoobrook Realignment Project (Riverside County, California) ENV. CONCERN MITIGATION MEASURE . TITIING OF NIITIGATION NIEASURE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE(S) VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE (PROVIDE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION) VERIFICATION PERFORMED Design Engineer ETV: Datz Construction Impacts The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will he tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. During final design and construction Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer during construction. - Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight Date Date Construction Impacts The construction contractor sh:II utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer during construction. + Designs Engineer Date Dale Date Dale Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight Construction Impacts The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that vnrk crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sigh -off by resident engineer during construction. Design Engineer Resident Engineer Date Date Environmental Oversight Construction Impacts The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic, and to minimize obstruction of through traffic lams adjacent to the site: if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off hp resident engineer during construction. Date Date Dale Design Engineer Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight 01 0 d-020: S:1E930 GRE E N W ALD NEG DEC k l IT v ION.doc„ I I1\.ASS, L\TES_INC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Greenwald/Meadow brook Realignment Project (Riverside Count), California) ENV. CONCERN MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING OF MITIGATION MEASURE PERFORMANCE OBJECTRVE(S) VERIFICATION OF CON1PLIANC'E (PROVIDE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION) VERIFICATION PERFORMED IIY, Construction Impacts The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. During grading and construction. Sign -off by resident engineer during grading constriction. 7 Design Engineer Date Date Date Date Date Date Resident Engineer r Environmental Oversight Noise All construction equipment mud conform to the provisions of Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 7-10 I, "Sound Control Requirements." This section requires the contractor to comply with all local ordinances (i.e., County of Riverside) that apply to any work as par of the contract. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer during construction. Design Engineer Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight Noise Portable equipment should be located as far as possible from the noise sensitive locations as is feasible. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer during construction. Design Engineer Date Date Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight Date --- Date Date Date Noise Construction Vehicle staging ars as and equipment maintenance areas should be located as far a: possible from sensitive receptor locations. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer during construction. Design Engineer Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight 01'04 024:'SAF.930`GREENR'ALDNEG DEC`NIITMON.docn 2 nvc !Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Greetrnald/Meadotvbrook Realigmnent Project (Riverside Count}, California) ENV. CONCERN MITIGATION NIEASCRE TINIING OF MITIGATION MEASURE PERFORNIaNCE oBJEC77V'E(S) NITRIFICATION OF CONIPLIANCE (PROVIDE 'WRITTEN DESCRIPTION) VERIFICATION PERFORNIED - - ----- -- - Design Engineer RV: - --- Dale Date Date Date Date Date Hazardous 11"rite/ Nlaterials Sunrs's for hazardous materials castes at the proposed relocated residences and alfected business properties prior to demolition and or construction (e.g., asbes,os, lead based paint, propane tanks, etc.). The surveys shall be performed after right -of war acquisition of the parcels is complete. .After right -of -it ay acquisition. Incorporation into final desigi plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer prior to demolition and coustniction. Resident Engineer Environnental Oversight Cultural Resources If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safely 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 Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be n>tilled of the fend immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native .American lief itage Commission (N.AHC), which will determine and notiFy a Mort Likely Descendent (MILD). With the permission of the landowner or hisrher authorized representative, the descendent n nay inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the N.AHC. The MILD may reconunend scientific removal and nondestructive analsis of human remains and items associated with Native .American burials. During final design and construction. Incorporation into final design plans and specifications and sign -off by resident engineer during constnuctioa Design Engineer Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight Design Engineer Date Date Date Date Date - - Dale Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight t Design Engineer Resident Engineer Environmental Oversight 01.04 02aP:SAE93RGREENWALD,NEG DEC`.MIITNION.dooe 3 HAND OUT FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE 12/18/01 12/19/01 12/12/01 12/17/01 12/13/01 12/20/01 1 /4/02 1 /4/02 1 /4/02 1 /8/02 12/20/01 FROM County of Riverside Transportation and Land Manaaement_Agencv State of California Department of Transportation County Service Area 41, Meadowbrook Roads District Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearing House Department of Toxic Substance Control State of California Department of Transportation - Hazardous Waste Coordinator State of California Department of Transportation - Environmental Studies "8" State of California Department of Transportation - Environmental Engineering State of California Department of Transportation - Environmental Engineering State of California Department of Transportation - Environmental Engineering Southern California Gas Company LETTER NO. 1-1 2 2 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS / RESPONSES ON INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECELERATION (IS / ND) FOR GREENWALD AVENUE REALIGNMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FROM STATE ROUTE 74 TO WALLACE AVENUE T ATTACHMENT NO. AGENDA MAILED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PACKAGE HAND OUT AT COMMISSION MEETING Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 1 I i 1 Attachment No. 3 • I Attachment No. 3 COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE Letter of Support of Proposed Alignment Atternate No. 4 Letter of Support of Proposed Alignment Iternate No. 4 etter of Support of Proposed Alignment Iternate No. 4 etter of Acknowledgement of receipt of :nvironmental document and list of agencies and departments it was ransmitted to. welve questions in regards to the IS / D. T welve comments on Department of oxic Substance letter dated 12/3/01, pee item 5 above. T f hree comments, two of which are ormat / typographical and one that is in egards to Item No. 6 above. ive questions on the Noise Impact nalysis section of the IS / ND. ight question on the Air Quality nalysis section of the IS / ND. omments on RCTC's response to Letter o. 4-3. To be incorporated into Section 8 of the IS / ND, Response to Comments To be incorporated into Section 8 of the IS / ND, Response to Comments To be incorporated into Section 8 of the IS / ND, Response to Comments To be incorporated into Section 8 of the IS / ND, Response to Comments Dratted responses clarifying items in question and will revise IS/ND to include this information. See Attachment No. 3 in Additional Information Parlcaow for Aataita racpnnaaa Same response as those listed in Item No. 5 above. Drafted responses stating that IS / ND will be revised. Reference back to responses ,for Item No. 6. Response clarifying the procedures used in the analysis and stating the IS / ND will be revised to include this infnrmatinn Response clarifying the procedures used in the analysis and stating the IS / ND will be revised to include this infnrmation cknowledgement of receipt of IS / ND. To be incorporated into Section 8 of the IS / ND, Response to gomments To be incorporated into Section 8 of the IS / ND, Response to Comments HAND OUT FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS / RESPONSES ON INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECELERATION (IS / ND) FOR GREENWALD AVENUE REALIGNMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FROM STATE ROUTE 74 TO WALLACE AVENUE NO. DATE FROM LETTER NO. ATTACHMENT NO. COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE AGENDA MAILED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PACKAGE HAND OUT AT COMMISSION MEETING 12 1/3/02 Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearing House 1-2 Hand Out Acknowledgement that RCTC has complied with State Clearing House review requirements. No state agencies zubmitted comments. To be incorporated into Section B of the IS I ND, Response to Comments ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gray Davis GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH State Clearinghouse 057744 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: December 17, 2001 TO: Bill Hughes Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment SCH#: 2001121007 c ti i< *1 Steven A. Nissen DIRECTOR This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: December 3, 2001 Review End Date: January 2, 2002 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 8 Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning Department of Fish and Game, Region 6 Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. C c s B. A/4(yip S�: -71-‘,- 6 . 6&eeiolx) 1400 TENTH STREET P.C. BOX 3044 SACRA,MENTO. CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLF.ARINGHOUSE.HTML ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Comments from Department of Toxic Substance Control District and Staff Response Department of. Toxic Substances Control Winston M. Hlckox Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency December 13, 2001 Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5795 Ctxperats Avarntie Cypress, California 90630 Mr. Hill Hughes Riverside County Trarte ortetion Commission 3550 University Avenue, Sub 100 Riverside, California a 1121101 0577'37 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GREENNIALIYME 1DOWBROOK REALIGNMENT PROJECT (SCH ty20Q1121Q07) Dear Mr. Hughes: The Department of Toxic Substances Weld (DTSC) hes received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the a bonremierdloned Gray Dem Governor Raised on the review of Me document, DTSC`s comments are as follows: 1) The ND needle to end determine whether current or historic uses have resulted In any Meese of hazardous wastes/substances at the site. 2) The ND nemesis identify any !mown or potentially contaminated sits within the proposed Project arcs. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether ocnclitions at the alb pose a threat to human health arthe environment. 3) The ND *timid iden ythe mechanism to initiate any required Investigation and/or remade** for any site that require remedial, and than pouoi mart +vwma ► kr MVO, appr�atat regulatory oversight. 4) The Ha rirdorso'MfwM initial Site Assessment (MOM) report, dated November 2, 2001, recommended soli haling for aerially deposited Iced front past vehicle emissions in auras of disturbed soils healed along the shoulders of Routs 74, Greenwald Avenue, Smola Avenue and oilier local streets in areas where oonstruealbn would occur. Instead, the iniaai SiudY/Dta[t No0Ft of Declaration (l8/DND), dated November 29, 2001. states that the EDR records search end the ells survey slid not reveal any evidence of hazardous materials located within the paDjsRt limits, The ND is incomplete without implementing the above The anal champ mp OMR, aialailidiallit NNW allb itiI MO b veto 1a,aq>tsileawan b leaver sew Qom nwijon. PO err Mite". Name& ow wrrr as iwe Ol w meow weir fy ors wr011040.r wwMsarra aaoov. III 1•rltlYd an Plevslegt Paper Mr. NI Hughes December 13.2001 Page 2 B) The HWIBA report, dated November 2, 2001, recon mended suaveys for hazardous materials/wastes at the proposed relocated red residences and affected business properties prior to demolition andlor core urn (e.g., asbestos, lead based paints, propane tanks, etc.). Instead, the IS 13ND shows that based on the results of the site survey, no mitigation measures are required. if a survey is already conducted, the survey report has riot been provided to DISC with other documents. B) If the proposed project is planning to demolish any old buildings during the development, investigate the presence of lead paints and asbestos containing materials (AWNS) In the currently existing budding structures. If the presence of bad or ACNIe is ewprated, proper precautions shoaid be taken during any future dernoOlion activities. AddltlanNly, the oonWminrrts should be rernedisted In compliance with de Callornie environment regulations. 7) The ND skald auld be valuated whefherihe project arse le used for agricultural purposes the pat. New property is used for aprkcueural purposes, melte soils may contain pesticide residues due to the past and current uses of the Project site for vegetation eregrioulture. The site msy reeve contributed to sod andfor groundwater conteminaadjon. Proper Investigation and remedial actions should be conducted et the elm prior to the new development. B) Nth, proposed Mint is within Z000 het from at contaminated site, then the �� undatthe "Border 7.12111 of Contaminated Pro roposed �peudons should be taken prior to construction Otte proposed project is on a "larder Zone property: 9) My harmed o wa ilestr autefisis encountered during construction should be remodeled in accaordaroe with local, state, used federd rsQulitions. Prior to initiating any construction eattvtlies, an environmental asaeesrrent should be oonducts0 to &domain if ■mesa of hazardous westesfsubstences exists at the site. d eo, further studies should be carried out to delineate the stature and extent of the cont minetian. Also, It is necessary to estimate the polenliel threat to Public health artdiorihe environment posed by the site. lt may be necessary to determine lawn erupedNad response action is required to reduce existing or potential email to public health or Use environment N no immsdiee threat mans, the Oren remedy should be implemented to compliance with state regulations and policies rather than excavation of sod prior to any assessments. 10) All ineerpatbn andfor ranredietion should be conducted under s Workpien which Is approved by a! regulatory agency who has jurlscitakin to oversee I aardous waste cleanups. Complete characterization of trio ode is Mr. NI Hughes December 13.2001 Page 3 needed prior to any excavation or removal radon. 11) The project construadon may require soil excavation end soli ening in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required Prior to disponi of the excavated soil if the soil is contaminated. properly dispose the soli rather than placing it in another location, Land Disposal Roma (LDRe) may be applicable to these soils. Also. if the project is planning to import soil for bacidUtinp the areas =coveted. proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soli is free of tontaminetion. • 12) If during construction dew prat, soil end/or groundwater coraorinodlon is suspected. construction in the: Mess should cease and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should Iden#fy how any required investigation endbr remedleeon will be conducted, snd the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary %rndengerrnent Assessment (PEA) preparation lso DTSC administering the r Chimnough the p and E � P). Assistance to Neighborhoods (CLEAN) program, which provides low -interest loans to investigate and clean up hazardous materials at properties where redevelopment is likely to haw a boneAoW Impact 10 a community. The CLEAN program consists of two main aomponerrts: low Interest bans of cep to $100.000 to conduct PEAS of underutilized prepares; and loans of up to 2.3 million for the damp or removal of hazardous materiels else at underutilized urban properties. Theft loans ere evadable to developers. businesses, schools, and local governments. For additional intbrnawThsru an the VCP or CLEAN propraun, Pieria Oak MSC/ web site at tormgteg.geatt, hh: you would like to mes ldiscuss this matter further, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abrahams, Project Manner at Via» 484-5476. Sincerely, Haifa= Y, Sebum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup °pensions Brunch Cypress Ofhbe cc: See not ogee Mr. Bill Hughes Decarnber 13, 2001 Page +4 cc: Governors 0Moa of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Bast 3044 Secremento, Colon* 05812-3044 Mr. Gu uteri. Morin, Chief Planning end ErtMepniental Analysis Section CEGA TunIdeg Owfor Department of Te & Substances Control R.O. Box XXI Sac rarnenio, Cabala 98812.0808 MEMORANDUM December 20, 2001 To: Mike Davis File: Riv 74 RC C/13echtel 64 9Fij7ii3 G reenwald/ Meaciowbrook Real ignrnent 'Fro R• - na Roa st. 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator ubject: Disc jar: Camments to the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) letter dated December 13, 2001 and Draft Initial Site Assessment by LSA dated November 2, 2001. 1. Based on the ISA there were no historic uses that would have resulted in a release a of hazardous waste, this should be stated in the ND. 2. The ND should list the hazardous waste/material sites that were identified, their location in relation to the project and what their status is currently, and identify whether they are affected by the project. 3. Because there are no sites in the project are that would be affected this is not necessary. a. An aerial deposited lead (ADL) survey was performed by the consultant GEOCON ENV. a survey report was provided to Cahnrts October 3. 2001. The analysis of the soils detected background levels (non -hazardous) of lead in this area The ISA should be changed to reflect the findings of the survey and no further action regarding ADL is necessary. 5. Surveys for the presence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint are normally performed by Right of Way property management. The surveys are performed after acquisition of the parcels, the abatement will not affect the appraisal of the property. Surveys and abatement demolition are done in compliance with Stage environmental regulations. Permits are filed with the local Air Quality District for demolition of structures. A survey report of these materials would not be available until after right of way acquisition 6. see ir5 above. 7. Historical information discussed in the ISA did not reveal agricultural usage on this site. 8 As of October 2001, there are no known contarninate.d sites within 2,000 feel of this project. Mike Davis December 20, 2001 Page 2 9. If hazardous waste is encountered during construction of this project, all work within the potentially contaminated area, would be halted. Appropriate Ca!trans personnel will work with the appropriate State arid Local Agencies to develop a plan to assess and investigate the site and to determine corrective measures for the protection of public health and the environment. This is the common procedure for all construction projects. 10. see #9 above. 11. Depending on the final disposition of excavated soils, testing may be required by the accepting landfill. This would be done by the construction contractor as the soils are disposed of. i 2. see f9 above. Until the type of waste and affected media are determined, we cannot determine the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. Delft ISA Review; The potential for hazardous waste involvement determination is "yes" based on the need for an ADL survey and asbestos and lead paint survey. The ADL survey has been completed with no hazardous concentrations of ADL present and the removal of asbestos and lead paint do not affect the appraisal of the property a survey for asbestos and lead paint will be done after acquisition. 1 think, if there are no other identifiable hazardous waste concerns. the ISA. determination should be "NO". I also think the ISA should discuss the Meadowbrooit Market which is looted across SR-74 to the north of the project. This market has had in the past 2 underground storage tanks. The tanks have been removed for approximately 10 years (according to current tenant) but I think the property owner did not report this to the county because the government records data bate search does not reveal that the tanks were removed. The ISA and the ND should discuss this issue and state that this site is not within the project limits and it will not be affected by the project. Please call me at 909.383.5917 if you have any questions. irm v d r.7 ,,,...........� IRVIN a. CALIFORNIA 91614 949•553•1•76 PAR ..ah.sLst atvsastne PT. agenuOPID aoCKLrN December 21, 2001 Mr. Haissam Y. Sallourn, P.E. Department of Toxic Substances Control 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 1C-.:artiG_ DEC 7 6 2001 3ECHTEL CORD 05"l !"i2 Subject: Response to December 13, 2001, Letter Regarding the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Greenwald/Meedowbrook Realignment Project (SCH I12001121007) Dear Mr. Salloum: Thank you for your comment letter of December I3, 2001, regarding the Draft IS/ND and the Initial Site Assessrnent (ISA) for hazardous waste for the k realignment project. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) has directed LSA to respond to your letter on their behalf. The responses provided below are numbmed to correspond with the comment numbering in your letter. I have attached a copy of your letter for ease of your review. These responses were compiled in coordination with Rosanna Roa, Celtrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator. Response to Comment K. The 1S/ND includes a statement on page 34, item 5.7 d) as follows: "The EDR records search and site survey did not reveal any evidence of hazardous materials located within the project limits." The EDR records search of databases of local, state, and federal agencies, in addition to the results of the visual site survey and the review of historical aerial photos of the site (dating back to 1953), are the basis for the conclusions of the ISA report. A complete list of the agency databases searched as part of the EDR records search is included in the ISA report. The IS/ND will be revised to state that, "based on the results of the hazardous waste ISA prepared for the project, there were no known historic uses and there are no known current uses that have resulted in a release of hazardous waste." Response to Comment #2. Table A on page 7 of the ISA lists two sites with underground storage tanks (USTs) within OA kilometer (1/4 mile) of the project area. These sites are: 1) Meadowbrook Market, located less that 0.2 kilometer (1/8 mile) west of the project site at 27215 State Highway 74 (in the past, this market had two underground storage tanks, which were removed approximately ten ` 12 21ro10P:I.sA,E93o1crennvilaurrcswrsc.mraore.aaser.�/> 2. D(Fi cc t,)-- G PLANT"o awns ■NIINCaa ( DROWN years ago, according to the current tenant); 2) Canyon Lake North Mobil, located less that 0.2 kilometer (1/8 mile) west of the project site at 27323 State Highway 74 (this site could not be located during the site survey and appears to have moved). Based on information provided in the EDR records search, these sites are not within the project limits and have no potential to affect the implementation of the proposed project. There are no hazardous waste sites that have the potential to affect the proposed project. Response to Comment #3. The IS/ND includes a statement on page 34, item 5.7 d) as follows: "The EDR records search and site survey did not reveal any evidence of hazardous materials located within the project limits." Therefore, no investigation or remediation is required. Response to Comment #4. An aerially deposited lead (ADL) survey was conducted by GEOCON Environmental, and a copy of the report was provided to Caftans on October 3, 2001. The analysis of the soils detected background levels (non -hazardous) of lead in the project area. The 1S/ND and the ISA will be revised to reflect the findings of the survey. No further action regarding ADL is necessary. Response to Comment 05. Caltrans procedures specify that surveys for the presence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint are normally performed by right-of-way property management The surveys are performed after acquisition of the parcels. Abatement, if required, will not affect the appraisal of the property. Surveys and abatement of properties scheduled for demolition are done in compliance with State environmental regulations. Permits are filed with the local Air Quality District for demolition of structures. A survey report of these materials would not be available until after right-of-way acquisition. The IS/ND and the ISA will be revised to include this information. Response to Comment 06. See the response to comment number 5 above. Response to Comment #7. As discussed in the ISA on page 8, a review of historical aerial photographs of the project site dating back to 1953 did not reveal any evidence that the site has been used for agriculture. The IS/ND will be revised to include this information. Response to Comment #S. Based on a visual survey of the project site conducted on dune 4, 2001, and an EDR database search conducted on March 27, 2001, there are no known contaminated sites within 2,000 feet of the proposed project. Therefore, the project area does not include any "Border Zone Properties." 121211010 P:LSAE9301GreerrwaldlRTCADiSC.responscicUer.wp02 Response to Comment #!9. Based on a visual survey of the project site conducted on June 4, 2001, and an EDR database search conducted on March 27, 2001, there are no known contaminated sites within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. The standard procedure for all construction projects, if hazardous waste is discovered during construction, is to halt all work within the potentially contaminated area. The appropriate Caltrans and County personnel would be notified and would work with the appropriate local and state agencies to develop a plan to investigate and assess the site and to determine corrective measures for the protection of public health and the environment. Page 9 of the ISA report states, "A site specific healdfand safety plan and hazardous waste/material handling and disposal procedures plan shall be followed for any previously unknown hazardous waste/material encountered during proposed project construction." The IS/ND will be revised to include information regarding these standard procedures. Response to Comment #10. See the response to comment number 9, above. Response to Comment #11. Depending on the final disposition of the excavated soils, testing may be required by the accepting landfill. This would be done by the construction contractor as the soils are disposed of. The IS/ND and the ISA report will be revised to include this information. Response to Comment #12. See the response to comment number 9, above, regarding the procedures that will be followed in the event that previously unknown hazardous waste/material is discovered during construction of the project. If you have questions regarding the above responses to your comments, please contact me at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ,ff-X°7'41-• King Thomas Project Manager Attachment: cc: Mike Davis, Riverside County Transportation Commission Rosanna Roa, Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator Sal Chavez, SC Engineering t 2f21 rot «PASAE93 response.leaer wpd03 ATTACHMENT N0. 4 Comments California Department of Transportation District 8 and Staff's Responses LETTER 4-1 Received Jar--04-0:' 02:29nm from 909707792000 + LSA FAY THREE pawe �liAar2P07: 9_:E2 909767792000 RIV Ci TRANSP COMM PAGE Ca "n3031434 i.ye ir4 Ewe 22-7 POI JA4 04 ' 02 24 : """ oars oreAareevr.—Mseetan1MlnilfrWilleAO AMON -0111111.,... DRPARTNIlNT OfiliOMAfORTAI ION °asaainw. r: to wrs, eIRO r tee Se ent►ne, Celan* 0140s.s+11 Plow All•I HMO sax cm saws hammy 2002 i Mr, Hideo 8at1r Neer Exeevaline*triewx Ithio ids Om, tampu eelom CammMiaa 33i0 Velverelte ease AlvRdds, CA 93sl01 mur wvr. oa.ler suttioo ; OproomittAireillomemok Avg Rasitipnesest Project Dear Mr. : Camaro Sevironennial OUR* Moods teoeived various etwes been el studio br the above project from LRA. a• have+meVie ed the anttelat old have so tbliewati soir nreass: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY • Appoodk C: Cal Clew Cheater.% Dutsrrlly to Used twice. • APpe tditt C: boot a leased aeolabias the sbbavieGow tartlte Stews Dseignetoa C:ohtran. CULTURAL ASSISSMENT s homed krC7goA ally bolond ass !tie burl Sir Alswtreett Omments from lloast ma Rot to Mike Davie Also, &Wooed we trig Air Qua lty Analyob teed )Kola bone Analysis aotomsMS book Tony Louie to %y cam. ills rid Julio woo noeiwd without a doter ietOsr. is =Ur to facilites flours reviews, wa "amid appestats is all review morns Ae sacomputiad by a mover fetter leeen use know to whore M sitsvl a Bead ger comeasewte, with slsadiinrs, noel ate' ashy paaw% htfonesties. Titattlt Islas wpm* to mrtiw tams 419Vitallinirdlg study the Project. RecetvCd Jan-04-0? 0i:29pm from 904787792990 LSA FAX THREE 3216412a12 n:52 999797792999 RI'a CO TRANS? C.'ONN 9093636434 CALTg4NS ER49 297 DOPE WINN kiln 0 DW OO page 3 PAGE 83 JAB a4 '02 14: gym: have any quieae ne, ply Googol Tao at (909) 3134379 or Alicia Coibor n at (909) 318- 7035. smoerely. (original g(pist6 MARE J. PS RY. Mir Eaves! BMiOir'E9" &Wore C: King TharantroM) Brno wow map Ell)H} UTTER 4-2 Received Jun-04-02 A^::) pm from 90978>na00 LSA FAX THREE babel f S. /b4/20e2 el : s2 E4097877920a0 RIv CO TRA SP COMM PA3E 06 9E93836494 GORR* 2E9 Da7i97 SAN Zw ,a:: 14:�: sow ai Culifoom Memorandum ro Tony Chong usA Prom Dfpertflier4401141110e610On Environmental Engineering IM.1124 voivrec Review Noise imam* AnallyNs Report en eenwaid/Mwdowbroolr ltaillignmerd OM) e3uu.�11 TrawyMrtlofau4WAIttingAomorr PHs: iA WI743 08. Swirl es otte 74 KP 43.ese 6rsenweiri Mtereeotion The feliowing ale our ceorrmteres: Ungar "lxeoWM •iemnse ste OA Pepe t, si the and of iw third paragraph, please note that although thee +it no substantial increase in noise level, the noise levels set waivers 5 and 10 exceed that Nolte Abotehient COOK,* and Ire such none mitigation must be considered. Under 'Mare Noire lnsieonntent, Wmpaols, end aonstdered anetsmentfinitiottioe" an aea.13, third WtsOrrpi+. file lilt settlenoe, again noise mitigation must be considered. Under' Cor111111+allon MOW on page 14. the tftlyd parapreprE Vie word "Speolflcstior4 change to Prevision', Anoints, third ;lowish. inoludr slid show the written Seetior► of 7-10/1 of the Canna SMnaard Proviabns. Reference Agway o, Iteiseirers: Is then in *duel ree0eiver et looetron A-5? if so, why is rt not shown or1 rile pilsrlirntrY. is it a �p ar'argil trice of property? if there is no home at tnla location why wee et measured end used as a eseeWer7 Qiesee IMMO itgagraphic mapping whoring elevations clearly. TonLoo lu Chief. Frty nrmsefir $rggaNring 4-2A 4-28 4-2C 4-20 4-2E 8.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTRODUCTION The letters in this section of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) include public comments on the Draft IS/ND for the proposed Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue Realignment project. The Draft 1S/ND was circulated for a public review period that began on December 3, 2001, and ended on January 2, 2002. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commentors and to indicate where and how the IS/ND addresses pertinent environmental issues. The Draft IS/ND and this responses to comments report collectively comprise the Final IS/ND for the Greenwald Avenue/Meadowbrook Avenue Realignment project. Any changes made to the text of the Draft 1S/ND or its amendment correcting information, data, or intent, other than minor typographical corrections or minor working changes, are noted in the Final IS/ND as changes from the Draft IS/ND. Revised text is noted by a vertical line in the right margin. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially, and each issue within a comment letter, if more than one. has a letter assigned to it. References to the responses to comments identify first the letter number and second the comment letter (2A, for example). CALTRANS COMMENT ON THE DRAFT 1S/ND Written Commentor 4-1. Marie J. Petry. Chief Environmental Studies, Caltrans, District 8 4-2. Tony Louka, Office Chief, Environmental Engineering, Caltrans, District 8 P:'.SAE9301Cireenwald11.1Cs1RTC.wpd <X1/4/02» 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC JANUARI20n2 INITIAL STUDY'NEGATIVE DECLARATION OREENWALDIMEADOWRROOI: REALIGNMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Letter 4-1 COMMENTOR: Marie J. Petry, Chief Environmental Studies, Caltrans, District 8 DATE: January 4, 2002 RESPONSE Response 4-IA The 1S/ND. Appendix C. has been revised to list the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly once. instead of tN. ice Response 4-1 B The 1S/ND, Appendix C. has been revised to include a legend explaining the abbreviations for the Status Designation column. Response 4-IC All of the comments in Rosanna Roa's December 20. 2001. memorandum to Mike Davis have been responded to (see responses to Letter No. 2) in the Response to Comments section of the IS/ND. In addition. a response letter was mailed to the DTSC on December 21, 2001. The Draft IS/ND was mailed to Caltrans District 8 on November 30, 2001, with a Notice of intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (NOD. The NOI requests that comments be sent to the Riverside County Transportation Commission no later than January 1, 2002 (close of the public comment period). In the future we will submit environmental documents for review through Caltrans Project Management (unless we are notified otherwise) and we will also notify the Caltrans Environmental Studies Department that a document(s) has been submitted for their review and comment. Also, a cover letter that explains to whom to send the comments. together with the deadline for receiving comments. will accompany future submittals. P:1SAE93MGreenwald1RTCs1RTC.wpd <(114/02» 2 L .lA ANNOCIATES.. INC. .1 A'til AR1' tow.: }N [T [AL STLIDY(NECATI VE DECLARATION cREENWALD/MEADOWBROOR REALJQNNIENT RIVERSIDE COUNT}', CALIFORNIA Letter 4-2 COMMENTOR: Tom• Louka. Office Chief, Environmental Engineering. Caltrans, District 8 DATE: January 4. 2002 RESPONSE Response 4-2A The Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment project, with the exception of the Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR-74, is located in unincorporated Riverside County outside of Caltrans right-of- way (please note that noise receiver 10 is located outside of Caltrans right-of-way and was evaluated using Riverside County guidelines). The noise analysis was prepared pursuant to County of Riverside guidelines. which do not require consideration of noise abatement unless the project related noise increase exceeds the threshold of 3 (IBA. Per the results of the noise modeling conducted for the proposed project, the project related noise level increase is 1 dBA. Therefore, per County guidelines. consideration of noise abatement for receiver 10 is not required. Full acquisition of the parcel where receiver 5 is located is required. and no noise mitigation is necessary. Response 4-2B See response 4-2A above. Response 4-2C The word "Specifications" has been changed to "Provisions" as requested. The Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment project, with the exception of the Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR-74. is located in unincorporated Riverside County outside of Caltrans right-of- way, and the noise analysis was prepared pursuant to County of Riverside guidelines. All pertinent County guidelines will be followed during construction. Response 4-2D Full acquisition of the parcel where receiver 5 is located is required, and no noise mitigation is necessary. Response 4-2E Figure 4 will be updated to show topographic data as requested. F':`SAE930\CirrenwaldlItTCARTC.wpd 0l/4/021> 3 .� • ..a_GLiah. . • `IV . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 8 464 West Fourth Street. 6" Floor MS $?,4 San licnuadmo, CA 9240i-1400 PHONE (909) 3834355 • FAX (909) 3113-5975 January 4, 2002 Mr. Tony Chung LSA Associates One Park Plaza, #500 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 553 0666 (office) (949) 553 8076 (fax) Re: Review of Air Quality Analysis for Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment in Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Chung: The above referenced project prepared by L5A Associates for SC Engineering has been reviewed. The comments provided below are request for changes to the repon. Please incorporate the following comments into the air quality analysis: 1) The attainment/non-attainment designations listed on page 10 of the report delineates the status of the carbon monoxide criteria pollutant as follows: CO: Noaattatareent for federal (Serious Classification) standard only (State nonanainmcnt status applies only in Los Anodes County part of the South Coast Air Basin). Please revise the language to more accurately reflect the project vicinity as provided below: CO: Noaa temrnent for federal standauds (Serious Classification). Attainment for state standards in the Riverside County portion of die South Coast Air Basin. 2) Pages 10 and 13 provide a description of each pollutant. Are these pages providing a description of the criteria pollutants? If so, a description of lead should be included arid the description for reactive organic carbon (ROC) should be deleted since ROC is not a criteria pollutant. 3) Figure 4 highlights the project location relative to the SCAQMD air monitoring sites. Table B displays the data obtained from the Riverside-Rubidoux monitoring site for various criteria pollutants. However, the Perris site appears to be substantially closer to the project location than the Riverside-Rubidoux site. Data obtained from the monitoring site nearest the project location is preferred over more distant sites because it is usually more representative a air quality conditions. Please provide an explanation as to why the data obtained from the Riverside-Rubidou x site is more representative than the Perris site, or use the data from the Perris site in lieu of Riverside-Rubidoux. Tate ass improves mobiliv across CA/woe �% S A A i w a r t e a O r e c n w i d d e m e o d o w b r o o k R e a i i j t t r u a n t P a g e 2 M 2 4 ) I t c a n n o t b e o v e r s t a t e d t h a t w h e n p e r f o r m i n g a p r o j e c t - l e v e l c a r b o n m o n o x i d e a n a l y s i s , f i g u r e 3 ( L o c a l C O A n a l y s i s ) o f t h e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o j e c t - L e v e l C a r b o n M o n o x i d e P r o t o c o l ( P r o t o c o l ) m u s t b e s t r i c t l y a d h e r e d t o . T h i s i s n e c e s s a r y t o j u s t i f y t h e t y p e o f a n a l y s i s s e l e c t e d w h e t h e r i t i s a s i m p l e q u a l i t a t i v e o r a c o m p l i c a t e d c o m p u t a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s ( i . e . , C A L I N E 4 ) . A C A L I N E 4 a n a l y s i s w a s p e r f o r m e d f o r t h i s p r o j e c t b u t a b s e n t o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s c a l l e d f o r i n f i g u r e 3 . P l e a s e p r o v i d e t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e n e e d o f a C A L I N E 4 a n a l y s i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o f i g u r e 3 o f t h e P r o t o c o l . F o r y o u r r e f e r e n c e , t h e m i c r o s c a l e C O m o d e l i n g d e s c r i p t i o n a n d r e s u l t t h a t w a s i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u b m i t t e d a t t a i t u n e n t / m a i n t e n a n c e p h u t f o r S o u t h C o a s t A i r B a s i n i s . p r o v i d e d a s a n a t t a c h m e n t . 5 ) P a g e s 1 8 a n d 1 9 c i t e t h e u s e o f E P A C 7 F 1 . 1 a s t h e m o d e l u s e d t o g e n e r a t e e m i s s i o n f a c t o r s f o r t h e C A L I N E 4 a n a l y s i s . H o w e v e r , t h e r e p o r t d o e s n o t s t a t e t h e s o u r c e o f t h e i n p u t p a r a m e t e r s u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e m i s s i o n f a c t o r s . A l s o , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e e m i s s i o n f a c t o r s n e e d t o b e i n c l u d e d i n A p p e n d i x A o f t h e r e p o r t . 6 ) T h e m o s t r e c e n t l y a p p r o v e d p l a n a n d p r o g r a m i s t h e 2 0 0 1 R T P / R T I P . T h e h o r i z o n y e a r s u s e d i n b o t h d o c u m e n t s i s y e a r 2 0 2 5 . P l e a s e r e v i s e t h e C A L I N E 4 a n a l y s i s t o i n c l u d e t h e h o r i z o n y e a r o f 2 0 2 5 . A n a l y z i n g i n t e r i m y e a r s , y e a r s b e t w e e n o p e n i n g t o t r a f f i c a n d h o r i z o n y e a r , i s o p t i o n a l . 7 ) F i g u r e 5 o f t h e r e p o r t i s a r e a p l o c a t i o n o f s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r l o c a t i o n s . T h e r e c e p t o r l o c a t i o n s s e l e c t e d a r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a C A L I N E 4 a i r q u a l i t y a n a l y s i s . P l e a s e r e v i e w p a g e B - 1 7 o f t h e P r o t o c o l a n d r e s e l e c t a p p r o p r i a t e r e c e p t o r l o c a t i o n s . 8 ) P a g e 3 1 o f t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n t h e q u a l i t a t i v e P h l i o a n a l y s i s . P l e a s e b e a d v i s e d t h a t t h e U S E P A h a s c h a n g e d P M I o 2 4 - h o u r s t a n d a r d f o r m . I t h a s b e e n r e v i s e d f r o m t h e 1 - e x p e c t e d e x c e e d a n c e t o a 9 9 t h p e r c e n t i l e f o r m , a v e r a g e d o v e r 3 y e a r s ( E P A ' s R e v i s e d P a r t i c u l a t e M a t t e r S t a n d a r d s F a c t S h e e t , g . S o f 6 . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e o n t h e I n t e r n e t a t w w w . e p a . g o v / t t n / o a r p g / n a a g s f i n i p r n f a c t . h t m l . T h e q u a l i t a t i v e P M r o a n a l y s i s n e e d s t o b e m o d i f i e d i n a c c o r d a n c e t o t h e n e w E P A s t a n d a r d . A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , t h e P e r r i s m o n i t o r i n g s i t e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y c l o s e r t o t h e p r o j e c t l o c a t i o n t h a n t h e R i v e r s i d e - R u b i d o u x s i t e a n d i s p r e f e r r e d I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n ( s ) , p l e a s e c a l l m e a t ( 9 0 9 ) 3 8 3 - 6 3 8 5 o r S e a n Y e u n g a t ( 9 0 9 ) 3 8 8 7 1 4 6 . S i n c e r e l y , T o n y L o u k a O f f i c e C h i e f , E n v i r o n m e n t a l E n g i n e e r i n g A t t a c h m o t S e m i s m e o t a l M o d e l i o i l o t o m i e b o o f o r L o a A n g l e s A r a l r n t a r m a l e a t 8 p l l i j " C " M . P e t r y A . C o l b e r R S Y �%e y E i l e ' C a l l T a r t s e n p r e u t s m o u s y a c r o s s C a l i f o r n i a ' LETTER 4-3 Caltrans Air Quality Comments Y.,FILES 1Current Design Prolects\Re-99-54 Rte 741Corresp\CorfouttCeltranslCettrans Lett_002.doo MotootSd az:29nm frCm 9697877921100 > I.SA FAX THH}-t page 4 �4,':B17,2 *Ici7a77a:.wear RttA co TR41.192 r, 44 RAGE ..04 94943306494 2..nur S cwa pe5r07 i4`1 'd ' J: id: itJ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District a 41.e went r<eea M NOM fP Pious MS Ca ran ier■aeeenu. G 02.4411l - i4ao 1110r4e te0et31.1-87t1 • ta..Y /Oast 33,4 ! lsretar y 4. 2002 !eat. Tony Chung LSA A/40MM One Perk Flare. 41300 Irvine. CA 926111 !949) 553 Obddloffice) {949) 3331073 (tau) Rs: Review of 41r Cluidity Analysis far Oreenwaldl/Mseda+cbroak Realignment in Riveselte Ceumis , Catoctin Dear Mr. Chew=: The above refitencea project proper by 1.3A Associates for .3C Bagineerins :less been reviewed. Tart atim a nts provided below see resnest far ebafteees to tale :sport. Please incorporate the followingeorameata lido the sir quality enalyais: 1) The stuiuureutenenits inment designations listed as pep 10 of the report defined** the status of the emboli monoxide amnia pollutant se follows: COI Neaawraeasst lrr era ru *alas Citeseitiode t reareiate arehr (dncs noa.mnmenr status Applies arty lot Los Amass Omer pet et me Maas Cease Air Baia). Please revise the language to move sontwly refloat the project vicinity es provided below: CO: i~taseesiment fist tielerel sesnierda Menem Ciresel stion). Anstemsae **AIM saasditds to d►s RNarstee Oat* potion of is Sore Coen Air Basin 2) Papas Ifl and 13 provide s dtee rptioe of each polintatit. M these pane: pevvtding a description of llte criteria poltutmts? Il so• s description of but should be incite -ad and the description for remise manic esrban (ROC) should be dale ted sines ROC is sat a criteria poliuterrt. 3) Figure d highlights die project !oration Mann to the SCAQMD air trantoting sites. Table B displays the dui oeWrled trots :sett Riverside-Rubidous tnonittmny site for various criteria pollutants. Hewwar, the Perris sic appears to be subsuuuialty closer to the preleet location than the ltiveisidedttrbitlous site. Dues obtained from the monitortrig $its nearest the project location is peened aver more distant sites because it is usually more repraeeeruativo of air quality asnditi 05C Pietas provide as explanation as ere wily the data chromed from the Rivmida-Rabideut sate is more representative than the Perns site, or use tree tiers free:: the Perris site is lieu of Rsvemeen-Rubtdou x. mievenr rear evens eteeseeW+amass GsWomut 4-3A 4-3B 4-3C ven Jan--04-02 02:291:13 troll 96978779?000 L54 FAX THREE 139gc 5 al/+1a; 7Pin 2: 91/973771:2000 RIv TR4'4:10 CDMM rfi� sw r 05 , vesmoolllY rls.vitona van, AG P24, 41 I p:04 aw ' aa •.II. t -uw•. USA AMOIDinl OrnineitYiMsegeb oelr ReaIliknee Pw2ei) 4) R aanrtOt be overstated that when performing ing a prOject•leYel carbon mahout* area Via. figure 3 (Lace CO Analysis) of the Transportation Proioct•Levol Carbon Monoaids Prettx01 (Protocol) mast be acidly adhered to. This is fimssry, to justitY the type Of 41136113 sacs SW whatherr it it a simple qualitative or a .complicated compatational analysis ji.e„ CA.1.20 4). A CALM 4 atialr* was performaei for this prOject tart ansant of the guidelines called fain frpurs 3• ' Ptease provide the Mance:inn for the need of a CALiNE 4 en4 O* with respect to inure 3 of the Protocol. For your reference. tlbs mistose ala CO meeting description and result that MU included in the subtitled saainmenthrointt aenee phis for South Coast Air Basin is provieod Si ea atteeteeset. i) Ages 18 and 19 cite d+e use of 1411YACR1.1 es the model used to generate omission factors far the CALM d anillyais. Soswvar. tits capon doss not state the source of the input parameters awe to desseewtiae the mission factors. Also. the multi of the emission factors need to bs Molteesr in Appsttdnt A of else report. 61 The molt twenty approved pion end palms is the 2001 RTIYRTIP, The horizon yaws used Its both documents is year 2025. Peen revise the. CAL AR 4 analysis eo include the horizon year of 8333. Agdyreias iaYrim yeses, ywrs between opening to tzafiic nod horizon years is optieteal. 7) Pleura 3 of the report is a snap location of sensitive receptor locations The receptor Wantons mimed are iaappesehate ibr a CAWS •tilt quality nitric Rome review par B• 17 of the Prot0:01 and easelect appropriate receptor location, 10 Fuse 31 of the impart acetate the qualitative Pelts anetlyrsie. Plaids be advised the: the US IPA has eta pad PhIlie 24.hour sitasiderd felts:. k has been revised from the i-oxpaotsd armodansa to a 906 parese ele fosse, avarased oyes 3 levers (tiil'A's Revised Psmiculete Metter Umlau to Peet Shot. p. 3 of 6.1997). This iefonetation is available on die Internet at www.spa,spw/tn/mrPilginhlixstfttot.lrmtl. The qualitative FMte analysis needs to be modified lrt sosaedeneke to the new EPA standard. As mentitmed eerier, the Purls monitoring site le subetemlally closer to the millet location than the Riverside.Rubidou: site and is preferred If you lava say quest ior(s), pease es/1 rue at (999) 313-631e or Seen Yews; at (90913119 7146 Sincerely, Tony Look* Of'fis s Chief, Bovironmia al limed Bering mowers asillkeaetei Weser. timmermote tr ww ar twr.wiw .,s mom l` M- row A. Cairn roily elks Volaress mown menu ewe.* comer 4-3D 4-3E 4-3F 4-3G 4.311 LETTER 4-3 RCTC Response Y 1FiLES.Current (Design Prolectsglo-99-54 Fite 741CarresplCnrrout\Caltrans,Zaitrans_Lett_002.cloc Letter 4-3 ' COMMENTOR: Tony Louka, Office Chief, Environmental Engineering, Caltrans. District S DATE; January 7, 2002 RESPONSE Response 4-3A The text will be revised to incorporate the proposed changes to the CO attainment status in the project vicinity. Response 4-3H The text will be revised to include a discussion of Lead. As ROC is not a criteria pollutant it will be removed from the section. Response 4-3C The Perris air quality monitoring station is closer to the project site than this Riverside-Rubidoux air duality monitoring station. However, the Perris station only monitors ozone and particulate matter concentrations. Therefore, the concentrations at the Riverside-Rubidoux station, the closest station that monitors all criteria pollutants, were used in the analysis. To provide the most accurate analysis possible, Table g in the Air Quality Analysis will be revised to include the monitored data from the Perris Station. Response 4-3D Figure 3 of the 7'ra nsportetion project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol was reviewed. A3 the project will be moving the centerline of Greenwald Avenue closer to s sensitive receptor location, there is a potential for a carbon monoxide hot -spot impact. A screening analysis was therefore conducted. Because the project site is located in a federal non -attainment area, a CO analysis is required for the conformity determination. Therefore, it was determined that a detailed Caline4 model analysis should be perforated. Response 4-3i The input parameters and the model outputs for EMfAC7f 1.1 will be included in the appendix to the report. Response 4-3F The Cabinet model rums will be revised to include the horizon year of 2025. Response 4-3G Per the telephone conversation with Sean Young, Ulnas District 3 on January 7, 2002. the modeled receptor locations will be revised to include several receptor locations in the vicinity of the Sit- 74lGreenwuld Avenue intersection. Receptor iocationt 2, 3, 6. 7. Land $ will be removed as they are too far away from the proposed alignment to be impacted. Response 4.3H The qualitative. PM10 analysis was performed using Comas Interim Guidance: Pru%ect-Leval PAM Not -Spat Analyrix (June 1Z 2000). The EPA es Revised Particulate Matter Standards Fact Sheet {July 17, 1997) predates the Caltrans guidance. The 1:HWA, in coordination with the EPA, issued a Guidance far Qualitative Prvjeet Level "Nat -Spot" Analysis itr P111- 10 Nonattainnient and Maintenance Areat in September, 2001. However, this guidance does not provide new or additional PM-10 analysis from that in the Caltrtms Interims Guidance. Therefore, flee Caltrens guidance was used for this analysis. The Riverside-Rubidoux monitoring station was used for the PMep analysis, as it is the closest station that has projectCd future cmixtstretious in the AQMP. LETTER 4-4 Ca!trans Comments on RCTC's Response to Air Quality Comments Y. FILES\Current Design Projects\R0-99-54 Rte 74\CorresplCorrout\Caltrans\Caltrans_Lett_002.clac i t UY . .1,6- STATE l-)l CALUVRN IA-- r3L15A 1J, TKAN ANL) HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANS ORTATION District S 464 west tbwZh Strrrl, 6"' Floor MS 824 Sun Bcrnardino, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383.6385 FAX (909) 383-5975 January 8, 2002 Mr. Tony Chung ISA Associates One Park Plaza, #500 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 553 0666 (office) (949) 553 8076 (fax) Re: Response to LSA's luary 7 Correspondence to the Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment Project; Dear Mr. Chung: • a I The comments contained n the January 7 con espondence are accepted with the except'on of responses 4-1' 7 and 4-3H4' Response 4-3D Response 4-3D is the AlOspiOnsc to comment #4 of the Department of Translwrtalion's (Department) January 4 c4reipondence. The Department requested that justification of the use of CALINE 4 with resp is figure 3 of the CO Protocol be provided. Prior to exercising the CALINE 4 option, a sc 'tig analysis is called for in figure 3 to determine the necessity of a CALdNE 4 analysis. Pri o the screening analysis option, level 3 of figure, 3 asks the question "Is the project in an ; ' eft: with a submitted CO attainment or maintenance flan?" Appendix B: Sureleme�` Modeling Information for Los Angeles Area Intersection. was P r provided as an attachme * the January 4 correspondence. It contains the results cf the microscale analysis perfc an0d in the submittQd attainment plan. The CO impact '' this inicroscale analysis is acceptable and applicable to this project. The Department feels th i4 t : CALINE 4 analysis perfr.rincd for this project is unwarr mted. The tnicroscale analysis c tined in Appendix B sufficiently addresses the CO imp4ct ivr this project. The proper cours of.i rtalysis would haw beep to answer yes to all questions) called for in figure 3 of the CO Pro to 04 This would have satisf:l: tory concluded the CO analysis. However, since a CA 4lanalysis has burn performed though not needed, the Department will accept the analysi itiep utment requests that all future CO analysis be performed in adherence to figure 3 of th 'CO Protocol. Response 4-3H' Response 4-3H is the resp( rso to comment #8 of ! he Jakluary 4 correspondence. The EPA :u :.: a+ "4peti rants improves snobdili across Cofiforvi(J- Tony Chung I.SA Loci- t GreenwaldlMeadnwhrank Rea PH C. 2 2 document does predate tt tr4terim Guidance, however, the EPA document was not imple until February 2001 due>� :litigation. The EPA document changes only the form of the 2 PM„ l standard. This should *ot significantly alter the result of the qualitative analysis. Ihm Please rcvisc responses and 4-3H accordingly. Unless there is new information suu review or a Significant etange, the air quality analysis review of the GreenwaldlMeadovu Realignment project ig c:rclkided. ‘P-7:a i If you have any question ), Please call me at (909) 383-6385 or Sean Yeung at (909) 388 ri ,r Sincerely, y� Tony touka -'a Office Chicf, Environme101 engineering C M. Yeay A. C:olburn svray File • 9.X. h� • 0� el, Taltrans irnprwie nerosS Callfornia' LETTER 5 Southern California Gas Company Acknowledgement of Receipt of IS 1 ND V ',FILES\Current Desrgn ProjectslRo-99-54 Rte 74lCarrestACorroutlCaltrans\Caltrens Lett 002_doc Y" i1 The Gas Company, \ Sempra Energy company Southern California Gas Company 1961 W.Lugorna Avenue Redlands, CA 92374-9720 Malang Address: PO Bos 3003 Redlands, CA 92313-0306 December 20, 2001 Gas Co. Reference No. 01-686 OM Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment Project. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above -referenced project.. Please note that Southern Califomia Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies bake any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for. a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly, Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. . . lzk j s E, C�� e/4417 b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to commerciaUndustrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. if you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our CommerciaUlndustrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-2000. Sincerely, Bruce Backing Technical Supervisor LETTER 1-2 Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Acknowledgement of Compliance with Clearinghouse Review Requirements Y-FILES1Current Design Projects\Ro-99-54 Rte 741Corresp\Corrout\CaltranslCaltrans Lett 002 doe Gran Davis GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH State Clearinghouse � 05 78 8 January 3, 2002 Bill Hughes Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment SCH#: 2001121007 Dear Bill Hughes: o r k ' r woo Steven A. Nissen DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on January y 2, 2002, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 4' 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, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1. ,z/ 1 f . a /i0W4.7 /7). L ✓i5 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958I2-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 1X/WW.OP R.CA.G OV/CLEARINGHO USE HTML SCHii 2001121007 Project Title Greenwald/Meadowbrook Realignment Lead Agency riverside County Transportation Commission Type Nog Negative Declaration Description The proposed project would realign Greenwald Avenue at the Meadowbrook-Greenwald Avenue intersection with State Route 74 (SR-74). The intersection is located in southern Riverside County, east of the City of Lake Elsinore, west of the City of Perris, and south of River Road along SR-74. Greenwald Avenue currently intersects SR-74 at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. The purpose of this project is to improve the safety of the Meadowbrook-Greenwald Avenue intersection with SR-74 by realigning Greenwald Avenue to intersect with SR-74 at a 90 degree angle. This will improve the sight distance at the intersection for vehicles traveling east on both SR-74 and Greenwald Avenue. Lead Agency Contact Name Bill Hughes Agency Riverside County Transportation Commission Phone 909 787-7984 Fax email Address 3580 University Avenue, Suite 100 City Riverside State CA Zip 92501 Project Location County Riverside City Perris, Lake Elsinore - Region Cross Streets Greenwald Avenue and State Route 74 Parcel No. Township 5S Range 4W Section 21-22 Bass U.S.G.S Proximity to: Highways 74 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Vacant, Single Family, Mobile Home, Commercial R-R, C-P-S, C-I, C-P Residential, Commercial Project issues AesthetieNsual; Agricultural Land; Air Duality; Archaeologic-HIstoric; Drainage/Absorption: Economics/Jobs; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismim Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Ernsion/CompactioniGradirp; Solid Waste; TOxidHatardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 8; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parses and Recreation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning; Regional Water Quality Control hoard, Region 8; Department of Toiaic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 12/03/2001 Start of Review 12/03/2001 End of Review 01 /02/2002 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.n AS..N. rn %ITS. INC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progrnot for the Gramm rhlilMeadonhrtonk Realignment Prujerl (Rh mid, County, California) ENV. CONCERN Cartfenetlnn Irspcla 1 NIITICATION NIEASURE 1-I1411NG IDE RIt ripautoti MEASURE. EERH/NKIANCE OR.IErl 1 i E(S) Incorporation info final design Plan and specifications and sigtaR ID 'ethic's engineer dating cannructian t i.Rivit.11 Si rN t 11- ['Ut111.1.1Nf'4: Mitt lit IDE It Ell l EN flESCIll VI It IN) 1 EMI. II• tilt N PERI 01 - ! k�iq}o 1 tsRine.•r _ .. . aeairlern rneineer _ rnnirnrmternal f h ereighi The conailuclian contractor den &ea tht eam6ypion equipment used on rite hued an true emis ion baton and high enact , efficiency. The ewul'uciion crenractor Mrff anon dna nW construction plans incl de a adui alemetr dall conanMion equipment tan he tuned end m istained in accordance a ith the mantnfactuar''specifications. Dunn' final design and ca us uctian. esinatneerlon the emanation contractor du g utilise electric or thesel powered Duning final &rigor and Incorporation into final design plans and - - Imparts equipment in lieu of gasoline p mind engines Xhtfe feasible corsintetian, spccilkatiran and signolt In residua engineer during cortintction. lkwig, Engineer Reeidenl Engineer Em irmmenil th M.igis Construction line conduction contractor Mall mute that construction Fading During renal design' and -- ... Incorporation into li nal design plan and- Imands pion hull* a rlMermra that a ark RIMS X in gas otrrquirwmte ,,,,,A. —Tien. specilinliaa and sign-oRkt residers Xhen not in use engineer snaring colMfYelion Ilaslgn EngireM ' ResidrM re girtter fin ihnintetaal 1 h mien Culrstrusllaii The contraction Contractor shall lime the conMntAion scan ties so Doing final design and incorporation into final design plans and hope!+ as nat to interfere Xith peak hole tra1 k, mils minimize coslnnction speeirneations and sign -off In resident ohstr lion of drougt traffic la tes sdamt to Mr site: if necenary a Ilagpeaan shall be retainedta maintain safely arNacert to existing roadways engineer during construction- I • [ gn r• n, iron ResideMN I. rwitoecl i n ihnamtNal e h e„ihht !1g1Obi. SdF9latiNFElNiI'.4.1)TNEODEC IITIIOIf.dum I Ibfpp n1, tlai IhM ihr Darr Dale Ihte Dale !Mr filar; a a a z 41 rl I rll RI sl1 __1 Irll Mli -- 1s11 . 141 - 144.1 141 --- %II WIvNf)iH:adNl)1iII.)1i111-i1 0101113 1 I J. I Ca1V111W11111_I u.11uau J PWPP.41 13314914 uilpall liana,' ,,a) ui) pane onomi j uaullui 1.01014a)1 aaa�l!9u� 1Buall - (NI )IIMU. /SiliN:4111y1t:ilK%OV ! 3 )N1l"IJIY0.11 JO N01 i{ • WIB31 .rgLwpvoa9l!nq 111411113 Waplsas .iquo-tip PNs moRammis pus !will ullr ap pew am uolwodsom wolFV Wuosa Pus 16/091109 014u04 1u091301 isslaaai a,imam clap wand is xJ so Wrsaol xl wow roue suseusps!ssr putudnios Pus a ur 9adlrp Ropy-+ Noposupuo3 +YN uorpnus so lup p amigo 1 a 4.110-1a!sPutsuoysa Psh Par sugd ulpap pug sus ualendwwl ua!vn+puw Pun 'amp poi illaNnO 'oltillsAlsisiImilamla1l)passaslpa a!Y coop appssad se a4 se maul a9 plaolp ramdlds a ind MIN uo!Nmuus.)9u!s1p a aa!9w MWP!nl WiW'ullsPiosuale3:02,1s - .pus sow tilloop pug D w 11o!lssodsoaul uwValAu0J9iva 9wlnp laml!%tu Sup!,,, iu s-ulim (SY1111331'MU3.Al%11111104113.1 1 1109311,11lma Awl, 'owl 1411pO _ VUWoa a10 Jo Yrd se psis .isms oI i11ilr snp (app astmp .SMa1o.)''al) s .7uouipIwo pool p u ildusua o) aops)rroa asp 'maw wpm mil ,.'srWrlaunbsy W1s1uJPU1'14.'101-Lawiin'sawlsaguadSpiping surApo to suo!ownd alp an unoitea sum sous*** utoplusmsa pv asMN opining I N 4LIPSW J N113.1NO3 '.1N9 pfilnanN)Ia)umuuou,ui Na 0VA ulap!Say — ^--Y aaul9ul 16+sa0 -- -- sp!'nN)Irwauu.uw:1 wau!9u1 oiop!Sall walg{ u 9ui!k 11 — — ------ -.. .Puy voijuu uw pus lmpuil Sumba '.1laauspnup111oaalpscJsousuawlpurypan fla!'MWPN gamma pus waists pup ussosww unsulmslo+alil_ 7MIIS)IIV N011V311.1.11Y!O JIYIIYIl viasY8)VN0111'9I111111 (ttlu oja*) `ilunuJ aplua l >z)1 laa{uid 1ua111uyllrav nottlywnprapoppittuaaig alll lug ulriyuid Yullindog putt Ntsp rgunLY ulallrylllLY I i.1 .105. 1 VreS 111L11' I►Iiligntion Monitoring anti Reporting Program for lite CreennaleliMeatientIt milt Realignment Project (Rh enlde Counts , Califorrrlrty ENV. CON( 'ERN --- lltwrdems Wiener hlsletlals MI'ric.Criopi AIHASIlltE Sues ror haTardons malerials wastes st deop prosed relocated residences and al eaed Moines: properties prior in demolition ilMINI: OF 8141(1.11rION M1# 1SI,RE __..—-- _._ .1fler ri�n-of-,n inacrptininTri RERFl111111.1Nt'E. IIR.IF.I'rr1-F.rAI __.___' -'---...-- - hucorporititm info final design plans and specificalimK and slgrr-orrl n residTn 1 ERIFIC tilgNtli CUMULI LANCE — (PRO%ME It Rif rEN DEM stip1 urn) 1 EIIIFIr AI St1N FEID-11RMIFD Rh: and or coladnntian (e-`. ssbes.os, lead based palls, propane tanks, elc.)- lire wen r� s shall he perl nnxd slier right-d nos acquisition or Ore parcels it conpleie. engineer brim to dnnnlition and coyish -wins; -. - - I lcsigp 1'.ngilun Reaidert 1',ttginnerr _. Int flat Pmirminanun OiersigM 11x CSndfmral Respires.' Inhuman remains are encountered Stale Ileatdu and Sofas Code Section 7036.3 sines dot no further dinarbance shall occur limit -origin boring fnsl design and con onrelion Incorpoation ilao Mai dnipu p4en and specifications and sign -off M resident fie Could) Coroner has made a determination of and disposition h7uhgr Resources Cads Section engineer during crnnlruction. 1 kx rnT 1gn ' gi+ * f1a' IM pursuant to 309798. lit! Caw} Coroner h mull e'sniffed of the find immer aiels - u dummies are determined 10l: prdiistoric. the Coroner niil m44 the Ratite American linkage Commission (NAM), uirich will determine and n otil}' a Mist Likely Descendent Ott D). With Resident Engineer Ate permission of the landoona a hivhrr authorized represpMMita. the deacendemrosy ispedthe sileorate discomri. F.mirarnxnrill)rersish! fM The descendent than complete I'e inspection unpin 2e lours d notification ley to NAM. 'the MILD mn recommend scientific Rim ell aed>+o'd seethe C arlsltais of human remaits and iems asweiMed with Native Mond ni lurid'. fl~ Design Engineer Residor Engineer F.i. ironntentaiiRneiglf Da fir 1lcu p F-.orlinen Ih Resident Eneinrer i n, irmnrmilnl;lsersigla - ital fir 111111124 d1AE11OOREfN1i'ALI NEO DEC•11MION.don 3 re RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending September and October 2001. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts that have been executed during the months of September and October 2001, under the Single Signature Authority, granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $468,920. Attachment 000020 00'099'9 $ 00'0091ZZ $ 00'0Z6199t $ 00'099'9 00'0 DO'ODs'ZZ oo•oas'Zz 00'090' LE. 00'009'ZZ 00'000'009 $ 1Nnoviv _MOM 1Nnowv 10V LLN00 03UN3dX3 10VtIIN00 JNINIVIN3U 1VNIDIHO 1061suIsIdpuupdeldsiesnvi TZOQQQ Aq pestelati Aq paaedeid ZOOZ '0£ mini' Hon01I141 °JNINIVW3t! iNnowv wow:linneN;uelpiew em8 weeLgn10 eauepis sy Jelnwwo0 S301A2I3S 30 NOIld010S30 Q3Sf11NnowV 4011109 400Z ' 4 AInf FISV1IVAV 1Nnowd 1NV1i11SNOo LDDZ '4E t1390100 AO SV AIIHOHlrIV 3tIf11VNJIS TIONIS " 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 D A T E : J a n u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 2 T O : 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 F R O M : I v a n M . C h a n d , C h i e f F i n a n c i a l O f f i c e r T H R O U G H : E r i c H a l e y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r S U B J E C T : M i d - Y e a r R e v e n u e P r o j e c t i o n s S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o a p p r o v e : 1 ) T h e M i d - Y e a r R e v e n u e P r o j e c t i o n s ; a n d , 2 ) P l a n n i n g B u d g e t A d j u s t m e n t t o r e f l e c t t h e L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s ( L T F ) P l a n n i n g R e v e n u e a n d E x p e n d i t u r e s . B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N A t t a c h e d a r e c h a n g e s i n L T F c a r r y o v e r . A t t h e s t a r t o f t h e f i s c a l y e a r , s t a f f m a d e p r o j e c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e r e v e n u e s r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e s e t w o r e s o u r c e s . S t a f f h a s b e e n t r a c k i n g t h e s e r e v e n u e s o n a m o n t h l y b a s i s . C u r r e n t t r e n d s i n d i c a t e t h a t M e a s u r e " A " a n d L T F r e v e n u e s a r e 1 % h i g h e r t h a n p r i o r f i s c a l y e a r . T h e l a s t t h r e e m o n t h s h a v e a l t e r e d t h e g r o w t h o f t h e e c o n o m y . T h e N a t i o n a l a s w e l l a s t h e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a e c o n o m i e s a r e n o w i n r e c e s s i o n . T h e e v e n t s o f S e p t e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , h a v e f u r t h e r e r o d e d t h e c o n s u m e r c o n f i d e n c e a n d a s a r e s u l t c a p i t a l s p e n d i n g h a s d e c r e a s e d t o a p o i n t w h e r e t h e c o u n t r y i s n o w i n r e c e s s i o n . T h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e a r e a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t . T h e l o c a l e c o n o m i s t s a r e n o t p r o j e c t i n g a r e c e s s i o n , h o w e v e r , t h e y a r e p r o j e c t i n g a s l o w d o w n o f t h e e c o n o m y a n d a r e p r o j e c t i n g t h e 2 n d o r 3 ` d q u a r t e r s o f 2 0 0 2 a s t h e p e r i o d w h e n t h e e c o n o m y s h o u l d s t a r t i n g g r o w i n g a g a i n . B a s e d o n t h i s e c o n o m i c d a t a , t h e e v e n t s d u r i n g t h e l a s t t h r e e m o n t h s a n d t h e m o n t h l y t r a c k i n g d a t a , s t a f f i s r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n m a i n t a i n t h e p r o j e c t i o n s m a d e d u r i n g t h e b u d g e t p r o c e s s f o r f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 . N o w t h a t t h e y e a r - e n d L T F a u d i t i s c o m p l e t e , s t a f f h a s r e v i s e d t h e o r i g i n a l p r o j e c t i o n t o i n c l u d e t h e c a r r y o v e r t h a t i s n o w a v a i l a b l e t o t h e t r a n s i t a g e n c i e s a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s . A t t a c h e d i s t h e w o r k s h e e t t o s h o w t h e r e v i s e d b r e a k d o w n s . S t a f f h a s i n c r e a s e d t h e p o r t i o n f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p o r t i o n o f t h e L T F f u n d s h a v e b e e n i n t h e n e g a t i v e a n d n e e d s t o b e g r a d u a l l y b r o u g h t u p t o a p o s i t i v e p o s i t i o n . U p o n a p p r o v a l o f t h i s i t e m , s t a f f w i l l p r o v i d e t h i s u p d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e n e c e s s a r y t r a n s i t a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s . A t t a c h m e n t 0 0 0 0 2 2 L L 4'LL6L$ 940'£9Z'COS LIZ'9£$ 898`£OP$ 996`LE9` 4$ aseenul 8t7L'ZLL$ 9 L6' Lt78`9$ 1-56'899`££$ suoirefoid ZOOZ-LOOZ A8 pawed 868'90£' 4V$ LL8'9£L$ 8Z0'9EV9$ E66'0£ L'ZE$ ;uawuolpoddd ZOOZ-600Z Ad taBpnB 9 LOT9Z'Eb$ 969'90£' 44$ LZ£'£88$ ZO£ `99 L `tit7$ OOL'176$ ££L4t+9£` L$ 000' 009$ 000'Z L$ 9LL'L9 1.4917$ Oart7L6'£b$ 9961Z9 L'Z$ suoltaaford ZOOZ- LOOZ AA paslnab 9L6'Zb8$ 9L9'9171-1Z17$ OOL'b6$ 9t7e6 L£' 4$ 000'00tr$ 000`Z4$ OZ9`17L6`£17$ OZ917L6'£17$ 0$ suoitoafoid ZOOZ- 400Z AA tafipn8 %00'00 4 %SL' L Voet,'OZ %6L'LL 'Rol Jo DA uonelndod 1N3INNOIltlOddd ZOOZ-1.00Z 0Nf13 NOI1V11:I0dSNdt111d0O1 AINC100 3O1SZ13/1111 999 ZZ9' l L9L'LZ WO' LL£ L69179 4' 4 uonelndod €Z0000 AeileA apaan oled AejleA e11840e00 wafsaM 318tf11` AV 301sIb'1b+8 (%Z) LZ8 9S 30Nb'1d8 6uluueld OVOS (%£) 6uluueld Jl'J?:l uotfe.gslutwpv aoRpny 1V101 sfdtaoaH •fs3 (peuotpoddeun) Janotiueo RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Public Information Officer Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director. SUBJECT: UCLA Arrowhead Symposium Sponsorship STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, scheduled for October 20-22, 2002, at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead, in the amount of $5,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The UCLA Symposium brings together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to discuss major transportation policy and planning issues in a multi -disciplinary environment. RCTC has participated as a long-time sponsor of this symposium and Commissioners and other local representatives have participated in various presentations and activities during the Symposium. The requested sponsorship amount is $5,000, which is the same level of funding the Commission provided last year. Similar sponsorships are being sought from a wide variety of transportation, environmental and business organizations. Given the Commission's previous funding commitments to the Symposium, the request was included in the approved FY 2001 /2002 budget. Based on sponsorship approval, RCTC will be allocated three registrations to the Symposium, which may be used by Commissioners or staff. Registrations are limited and usually fully subscribed. Commissioners interested in attending should contact Naty Kopenhaver to reserve a place. The subject matter discussed is usually very relevant for the Commission and often touches on local topics. Last year, a presentation was made on the Transit Oasis Plan. Two years ago, Commissioner and County Supervisor Tom Mullen served as a featured speaker and made an informative and well -received presentation on the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Last year's program focused on transit. This year, the main topic will be the challenges and goals of addressing traffic congestion. In doing so, the Symposium will focus on the interrelationships among transportation, funding, air quality and social issues as they relate to public transit issues. Past symposiums have inspired 06004 legislative and policy initiatives, new implementation measures, special projects and new research. The Symposium also gives participants a unique opportunity to interact and share ideas with experts, academics, and other practitioners. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2001-02 Amount: $5,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 222-67-73150 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 000025 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorize Funding for the Relocation of a Pacific Bell Line to Allow for the Construction of the State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize: 1) The expenditure of $123,060 for the relocation of a Pacific Bell line to allow for the construction of the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. Staff is also requesting additional funds of $26,940, for any change orders that may occur, for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000; and, 2) The Chairman to either enter into an agreement with Pacific Bell to perform the required Pacific Bell relocation work for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, OR transfer the funds to the State to perform the work using the existing Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1 132. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project was initially funded 100% by Measure "A" funds. In November of 2000, the Commission took action to reprogram $3.345 million of RIP funds from the SR 74 Project to the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. This RIP funding along with an additional $16.7 million in Caltrans State Highway Operations and Projection Program (SHOPP) funds, fully funded the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project without the need for the originally programmed Measure "A" funds. Therefore, at the same November meeting, the Commission reassigned Measure "A" funds programmed for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project to the SR 74 Project. In December 2000, the Commission approved Design Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1132 with Caltrans for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project, from Tyler Street to Monroe Street, in the City of Riverside. The approved SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project Cooperative Agreement stipulated that the Commission would fund 100% of the costs for Final PS&E Design and Right of Way activities for the project, and Caltrans would fund 100% of the construction costs for the project. 00,0.026 All design and right-of-way activities were completed in Spring 2001 and in June 2001, Ca!trans awarded a Construction Contract for the project, for $16.333 million. The project is currently under construction. The Jackson Street Over -Crossing must be replaced, with a longer bridge, as part of the construction of the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. This requires that an existing Pacific Bell line be relocated during construction and reinstalled after the new bridge is constructed. Per the Cooperative Agreement, RCTC is responsible for the costs associated with relocating this Pacific Bell line, which is estimated to be approximately $123,060. To date, there has been no previous Commission action to authorize the expenditure of these SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Utility Relocation Funds. Staff is requesting that the Commission authorize the expenditure of $123,060 for the relocation of a Pacific Bell line to allow for the construction of the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. Staff is also requesting additional funds of $26,940 for any change orders that may occur, for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000. This work will be performed by the utility. It is still undetermined if the agreement with Pacific Bell will be between RCTC or the State. Staff is therefore requesting that the Commission approve either mechanism of funding this required utility relocation work. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2001-02 Amount: $150,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81301 (3610 — 16) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 00002'7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink' s Riverside Line for the month of November averaged 4,654, basically no change from the month of October. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 1 % from a year ago, November 2000. Due to Union Pacific construction on the mainline, on time performance has dipped beyond Metrolink standards since October 2001. As a result, Metrolink will. offer a 25% monthly pass discount for Riverside Line only monthly pass purchasers in January 2002. Metrolink previously offered this construction mitigation discount on the Ventura County Line in Fail 2000 to offset the inconvenience to commuters. Saturday Patronage: Passenger trips on the Riverside Line Saturday Service increased during the month of November to an average of 276 trips per Saturday, a 17% increase from the month of October. The service began . June 2000 and ridership numbers have been below expectations. The target ridership number for this service is 653. Public hearings regarding the termination (effective January 19"', 2002) of this service are being held by Metrolink on December 17, 2001 and January 11, 2002. Inland Empire -Orange County Line (IE0C) Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink' s Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of November averaged 3,007; a 2% decrease from the month of October. The Line has averaged an overall increase of 6% from a year ago, November 2000. 000028 Riverside/Fullerton/L.A. Line Metrolink has a tentative start date of May 6, 2002, for this new service. The service will begin with two peak period round trips and one mid -day round trip. Station Update Tustin Station: The opening event for the new Tustin Station is scheduled for January 18th, 2002. This station will serve the IEOC and Orange County Lines. Parking Issues: On November 26, 2001 parking enforcement was implemented at the Riverside -Downtown, La Sierra, and West Corona Metrolink Stations. First warnings were issued to park and riders who continued to utilize the stations as staging areas for carpooling and/or vanpooling. La Sierra Station parking issues continue to be addressed. A meeting was held with RCTC and AMF Bowling Center staff to discuss expanding the number of overflow parking spaces by 23 for a total of 115. Furthermore, the existing contract and the shuttle service contract with RTA will both be extended by six months to April 2002. Metrolink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities occurring at all Riverside County Metrolink Stations are captured and submitted to RCTC by Western Area Security Services staff on a weekly basis. See attached summary data for the period July - November, 2001. 000029 Daily Activity Report: July - November, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Metrolink Stations Activities Riverside- Downtown - Pedley : . La Sierra W. Corona . Total : CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 2A-Burglaa/Theft/Vandalism 1 3 1 2 0 7 2B-Vagrants/Trespassing 12 4 • 7 0 23 20-Suspicious Behavior 1 2 1 1 5 2D-Criminal Behavior 0 0 1 0 1 2E Graffiti 0 0 1 0 1 Total . 14 9 11 3 37 CRISIS SITUATIONS 3A-Medical/Fire Emergencies 1 1 0 1 3 313-Police Emergencies 1 1 0 0 2 30-Passenger Accidents 0 0 1 0 1 Total 2 2 1 1 j 6 MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS 4A-Lights 2 0 4 1 7 413-TVM/Validator Machine 3 1 2 0 6 4C-Elevator 11 0 6 4 21 4D-Other 47 50 51 47 195 Total 63 51 63 52 229 MISCELLANEOUS r 5A• AVG. # of Veh. Parker! Per Night 22 4 8 7 , 10 5B•Other 27 3 71 13 114 Additionally, the following general activities took place: STANDARD PROCEDURES 1A-RCTC Staff on Site 20 10 12 4 46 1B-Customer Assistance 148 152 145 34 479 1C-Ambassador on Site 152 39 73 34 . 298 Total 320 201 230 72 823 12/17/2001 00Ca3 o Daily Activity Report: July - November, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Metrolink Station Riverside -Downtown, 750 Parking Spaces Activities July I Aug I Sep I Subtotal ( Oct Nor I Total _ CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 2A-Burglary/Theft/Vandalism 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 26-Vagrants/Trespassing 3 2 1 6 3 3 12 2C-Suspicious Behavior 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 20-Criminal Behavior 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2E-Graffiti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 2 2 I'm8 _ 3 3 14 CRISIS SITUATIONS 3A-Medical/Fire Emergencies 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3B-Police Emergencies 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3C-Passenger Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS 4A•Lights 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 4B-TVM/Validator Machine 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 4C-Elevator 3 1 1 5 1 5 11 4D-Other" 3 4 7 14 13 20 47 Total 6 7 9 22 �14 27 Jr 63 MISCELLANEOUS 5A• AVG. # of Veh. Parked Per Night 20 23 20 21 20 25 22 56.0ther"" 6 5 s 6 17 6 4 27 Additionally, the following general activities took place: STANDARD PROCEDURES 1A•RCTC Staff on Site 1 3 4 8 8 4 20 1B•CustomerAssistance 30 27 25 82 32 34 J 148 1C•Ambassador on Site 30 26 27 83 35 34 1 152 Total 61 56 56 173 75 72 320 "4D-Other Terminix on site and J. H. on site power washing. Rite Way serviced porta-potti. IKES plumping on site changing water valve. Ascom on site. CRR serviced dumpster. Jefferson House power washed station areas. Tri- city electric on site. Sectran on site "5B-Other Riverside P.D. courtesy patrol. Fire Department on scene. Electric vehicle leaking Vehicle on fire, security put it out w/ fire extin RTA 413 started service at station. BNSF Police courtesy patrolled. Having problems with people smoking on platforms. Train to L.A. & San Bernardino cancelled & bused. Chartered Bus & 40 veh. Parked at station/Laughlin 000031 Page 1 of 1 12/17/2001 Daily Activity Report Analysis: July - November, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Metrolink Station Pedley, 283 Parking Spaces Activities July Aug Sep I Subtotal Oct j Nov [ Total CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 2A-Burglary/Theft/Vandalism 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 26-Vagrants/Trespassing 1 1 0 2 1 1 4 2C•Suspicious Behavior 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 2D•Criminal Behavior 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2E-Graffiti 0 0 0 0 � r 0 0 0 Total 1 3 1 5 2 2 9 CRISIS SITUATIONS 11 3A•Medical/Fire Emergencies 0 0 - 1 1 0 0 1 36•Police Emergencies 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3C Passenger Accidents 0 0 li, 0 0 0 0 4 Total 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS 4A-Lights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4B-TVM/Validator Machine 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4C-Elevator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4D•Other* 4 6 8 18 12 20 50 Total 4 6 8 L 18 12 21 r 51 MISCELLANEOUS 1 5A- AVG. # of Veh. ParkedPer Night 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5B•Other" 1 1 0 2 0 �1 I 3 Additionally, the following general activities took place: STANDARD PROCEDURES 1A•RCTC Staff on Site 1 3 1 9 0 1 10 1B•CustomerAssistance 31 31 29 91 31 30 152 1C•Ambassador on Site 9 9 5 23®9 7 39 Total 41 1 43 j 35 123 6 6 201 "4D-Other CRR servicing trash dumpster. Right way servicing porta• potti. Jefferson House on site power washing platforms. Tri- cor servicing dumpster. Burrtec servicing dumpster Sectran on site Bruscal Landscape on site "513-Other Pepe's towing removed abandon car. Vel Smith on site. LA Co. Sheriffs ckg sec. For permits/first aid kit Page 1 of 1 46766 13 2 Daily Activity Report: July - November, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Metrolink Station La Sierra, 348 Parking Spaces Activities July 1 Aug I. Sep j .Subtotal Oct Nov Total CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 2A•Burglary/Theft/Vandalism 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2B-Vagrants/Trespassing 0 2 0 2 3 2 7 2C.Suspicious Behavior 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2D-Criminal Behavior 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2E•Graffiti 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 1 2 0 3 5 ' 3 _ 11 CRISIS SITUATIONS 3A•Medicai/Fire Emergencies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 313•Police Emergencies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3C.Passenger Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 _ 1 1 MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS 4A•Lights 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 413-TVM/Validator Machine 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 4C•Elevator 0 0 1 1 2 3 6 4D•Other* 3 5 5 13 14 24 ' 51 Total 4 5 6 15 17 31 _ 63 MISCELLANEOUS 5A- AVG. # of Veh. Parked Per Night 7 9 8 8 9 8 5B-Other•* 5 1 12 18 24 29 11. Additionally, the following general activities took place: STANDARD PROCEDURES 1A-RCTC Staff on Site 1 3 3 7 0 5 12 1B-Customer Assistance 31 27 30 88 31 26 145 1C-Ambassador on Site 11 26 11 48 14 11 73 Total 43 56 44 ( 143 45 42 230 MD -Other Right Way servicing porta•potti. Ascom on site servicing TVM's. Jefferson House on site power washing. Ike's plumping changing valves. BNSF on site fixing crossing bell. CRSR serviced dumpster. Newco serviced dumpster and porta•potti. RTA Installing bench for bus stop Station lights turned on/oil manually by guards Elevator service • north platform "5B-Other Metro boarded train to Irvine for fair enforcement BNSF Police watching freight. Riverside P.D. checked handi-cap parking. Lady backed her car into concrete pillar. BNSF Police courtesy patrols thru the night. Passenger complaint station not handicap friendly 1st phase of carpool flyers put on vehicles w . 000033 Page 1 of 1 12/17/2001 Daily Activity Report Analysis: July - November 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Metrolink Station West Corona, 545 Parking Spaces Activities July ,I Aug I Sep I Subtotal Oct I Nov I Total CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 2A-Burglary/Theft/Vandalism 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 213•Vagrants/Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2C-Suspicious Behavior 0 1 0 1 r 0 0 1 2D•Criminal Behavior 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2E-Graffiti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 1 0 r 2 i 1 0 3 CRISIS SITUATIONS 3A-Medical/Fire Emergencies 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3B-Police Emergencies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3C-Passenger Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS 4A•Lights 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4B-TVM/Validator Machine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4C-Elevator 0 0 1 1 3 0 4 4D•Other" 5 3 7 15 8 24 47 Total 5 3 9 17 11 ,_ 24 52 MISCELLANEOUS fA- AVG. # of VeTi. Parked Per ig ti 9 8 9 9 10 9 5B-Other"* 2 1 1 4 2 7 13 Additionally, the following general activities took place: STANDARD PROCEDURES 1A-RCTC Staff on Site 2 2 0 4 0 0 4 1B-Customer Assistance 30 29 30 89 31 31 151 1C-Ambassador on Site 7 5 8 20 10 8 38 Total 39 36 38 113 41 39 193 "40-Other Waste Management serviced dumpster and porta-potti USA Waste serviced dumpster Jefferson power washed the platform Sectran on site Landforms on site "5B-Other Corona P.D. volunteer services checking disable parking BNSF Police checked freight trains Corona Fire Dept. conducted training exer. On site Pepsi Rep. On site Corona PD issuing tickets to cars w/expired tags Page 1 of 1 ttr01113 4 SC0000 >INnoa.1.3wn��n� !MU JaqwanoN • S311:1VINIAMS 33NVIAlltiOand NN110H131A1 1309440 06 ZE t0-PO ££6'ZE to-dos 99Z'ZE to-snv \1 4ti£'ZE to-mr Z99 Z t0-Unr to-�ew t99'££ G4L� Sd1111 t139N3SSVd AVCI1133M 39H1:13AV 9E0000 togdv to -Jeri to-ve3 • .....,. , t99'Ze 99f Z£ 9ZZ'ZE t0-uer 00-09a 09b'6Z oo-+wN 40tr'ZE q66' tg 000'9 4 000'9l 000'0Z 000'ZZ 00017Z 000'9Z 000'9Z 000.0E 000'Ze 000'tE )1N110H.L3W L 1000 1.4 MIN 130 dos YN' I %d10 LIMA 0 %d10 ieBuessed pi wM' 6eW Jdv Jen clad M uer * 3W11-NO SNM:11 SA 3W11-NO SN3JN3SSVd 1N3M13d Apo moues AepfeeM elnpayag 10 seinuireg u!LIMAA . �O O4AGN %GTO %O'99 960'01 %0'9L %WOO °/ 0'99 %WOO %TN %WOOL ��a �� " " " " " " " " " " 4 . 0 4 4 - \ A R . , A g a . . . . . " " " " " " " " " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " " . . . . . " . . . . . . . . " " " " " . . . . . . " " . . . . . " " " " " . . . . . . . " " . . . . . . 1 " 0 1 1 " 1 1 V i = 4 2 ) 3 0 c o 5 a ) ' 2 : 5 a e %LE dSNB Si (WEDS) eoxkul %I mel well dO %9 ALOO %E Aid %L rukrJs 100Z JegwenoN 6ulpu3 41uoW Z6 ►i!I!glsuodseb AEI peAelaa suieu J0 % I %PI %1, usilePueA %Li dSIV9 %9 AP13.1Iu09-0I8 %Ei A41O %E Jobuossed %0I V880S 6t,d000 600Z iaquaenoN Ili nsuodsaa A8 pa/felaa 10 % NN1101113W11[I11 afr0000 dfl-NO`d8 - SItIVH3 3ONtlW21Od213d 1%e %L£ L It0000 %9 %L % 4- %8- %17 %1, %S- 1%o %Z l • %Z- °/6l %0 %9 %0 %0 %Z- 00 noN sn 10 noN aBueya % f } 806`ZE EE6`Z£ one 14E`Z£ Z8WEE LEL ZZL ZOL 100.E 180.E EZWZ 6E6'9 1799' 17 LL17 9Z0`0l 69 L'S 009.E 10130 sn 10 noN aBueyo % l0 noN L98'S 0176'S LS9'17 999'17 ZS17 S£17 ZE0'0 L £05`6 01L`9 899'E EWE l0130 40 daS . 901 EEs'Z 618'S 8£9't+ 6917 619'6 £Z17'S SL£'£ l0 6rnd i it 1' Zilt£ b89`ZE 981`Z£ 9ZZ'ZE men 09V6Z ti66` i£ Z6 901 8£8`Z £86'Z £S8'S 069'tr 9S17 8178'6 6817'S 9l17'E la inr 968'S 661'17 Z817 »VOL Z99'9 £6P'E 10 unr 011 17L6'Z 666'9 Z08'17 1917 Ll L'0L lSS'9 ZOL'E 10 Am Z0L 17O8'Z SZ6'9 Z89'tr OZ17 88L'6 LZ17'S 9179.E l04 L6 l6 46 998`Z LL8`Z Z98`Z 816'S L69'17 606'6 SLZ'S L69`£ LO JeW 899'9 996'S 699`17 ZLS'17 LEP 91717 Z9L'6 069'6 OL l'9 6E0'9 ZL9'£ 9E1`£ lO QaA LO Uer 68 L69'Z Z9£`8 L 17E'17 Z917 1769'8 MVP oo oaa 001, 17178'Z 1768`S 819'17 LZS 669'6 199'17 ansnrad AvanoH - MOONIM H1NOW N331aIH1 Shcbl a3JN3SSVd AHO1133M 3911113AV MN1102113W 169'£ 00 noN $P meNww aav unr Aeyq 46/£6 M Jew qud uer aeCi JoN PO des any IRI' 96/46 MX 96/g6 Ada 16/96 86/16 Ad _ 66/96 A#�� 1.0/66 Ad 60/00 Ad X aiva Ol NOIld3ONl Sh11:112i3JN3SSdd A► CI>I33M 30V1:13AV NNI1Ob13W 000'9 00046 000'Z 4 X�y 000'9 L 000`9 1- - 000'GZ ~max 000'4Z 000'LZ 00010E 000'££ 000'9£ J0110 AwNIANOIM LILO 00000 10057./90 use% a3VisgS LePunS ;40N 'OOS 0004 0094 000Z 00SZ 000C sdpi Jauessed Allen eBeJaAv aolmas &puns aun oulpiewag ues r - � .��� 10-AoN PO dos Soy inr unr Aeµi idy ISJOPIM !ea SOPPUI On :DION Jen 4ed 10-uer 380 0004. > (C) 00G4 co. 000Z xi a oosz sdpi Jabuessed Area 966JOANY animas /WI:urges aun ounliewag ues ./0000 10-A0N des r , 1 ,fix1 unr clod L002r it•A giluno3 Y1 sePoPul Ides AlloN rr7 ,k" I 751 , psi*�i�F27 E ] Err:./4 f.. _ y sdul aa6uessed Allea a6eJeny 83pUOS AeRmies eun emsienw 0040N 0 005 0001. 005L 000Z 005i 0000 009E seam Apo 6ny l0'A4N 130 des env Inr unr hen ��PIlE JleJ 4000 saPnpul :ffloN �dy Jeri 10-uer pep sd1a1 Ja6uassed AlpQ 86e.Jany e3pues /WI:Li des eun Amen edoiewy Nov 00 Dec 00 Jan 01 99% 96% 100% 99% 98% 98% 97% 99% 98% 97% 100% 98% METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Tirrte LATEST 13 NIONTMS 98% 99% 96% 96% 93% 95% 100% 98% 98% 99% 100% 99% s•Vie. :. i•:. 77% 83% 92% 88% 82% 78% F 90% 92% 96% 93% 90% 89% 1 r..r ii cif 93% 96% 98% 97% 91% 97% 100% 95% 100% 95% 77% 89% 95% 96% 97% 96% 93% 94% Feb, 01 99% 98% 96% 97% 97% 97% 100% 98% 91% 93% 85% 89% 95% 98% 75% 95% 94% 96% ,Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 97% 99% 100% 98% 98% 98% 100% 99% 98% 99% 97% 98% 98% 96% 99% 97% 98% 99% 96% 95% 98% 97% 97% 97% 100% 98% 99% 99% 100% 100% 98% 99% 95% 89% 93% 91% 94% 90% 97% 89% 88% 89% 91% 93% 86% 94% 87% 88% 92% 92% 95% 95% 92% 94% 82% 98% 90% 100% 91% 93% 90% 98% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 97% 99% 99% 98% 99% 100% 100% 98% 100% 99% 100% 98% 97% 99% 99% 99% 100% 97% 97% 96% 94% 98% 96% 99% 98% 99% 98% 98% 97% 99% 98% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 94% 83% 89% 83% 91% 87% 74% 80% 88% 92% 93% 94% 91% 92% 88% 83% 93% 94% 97% 88% 95% 96% 95% 94% 93% 92% 92% 97% 94% 98% 95% 95% 96% 91% Peak Period Trains Arrivin Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time Nor Oi !eNo y 7 • efiZ• t. Peek Period DOM 99% 100% 98% 97% 99% 97% 96% 100% 83% 91% 98% 84% 94% 98% •rdSs'tOA.\7' f'xi 3. i�'a' 'Arti No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains ere not included in the on -time calculation. 000045 89% 95% 83% 87% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 96% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% at:i1 - 7. 7_;7 w -7'vx-'`1'i ,r s �; `7 ` . t" 3 '" "mrtrr `' y tr 0% 96% 95% IP1 six 'snvo L L L 0 roles £ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 lAlrf Qepin;eS Z 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 EMS AepinleS %00l %VZ %0 %0 %V 5101 %Z %L %91 %CZ %L %4 %91 10110 % £Ol 9Z 0 0 ti l Z L 91 tiZ L 1 91 111101 £ Ol 6Z 9Z ti 171. 9l E 1 9 01 Z l ti Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 E l l Z L Z 0 V 6 6 0 Z 0 0 l l 0 L 0 0 V 0 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 C 5 Z Z Z l l/iRI 00/iNI OO A!» tine 9NS lA'd N3A S31f1NIW S NVI-1 Ll31V32i9 SA -00 NIVaL JO 3snvo AtiVINikld 1.00Z a381AI3nON SAviaa MNI-10a13IN AO S3snvo P0000 1b101 JeL1i0 b!Iod ploH `o h189S (speBuessed wsllepuen wninaaw lutiar y ule�151egwd up.u.;461a�� leolueyoew Buigowdslp 1-1011mS/oeJ1 MOW/siePO MoIS s,o;ae;ap/sleu6is :3S11V3 sPeORad41t0 £1 Lt0000 •aortuag Aepung Aermieg sepnpx9 kewmns situ %WE £01 £ 01. 6Z 9Z V tiL 96 E a!w 9 < 03AV130 SNM11 %L'01 LLZ 9 LE 09 Et 1•Z 179 trIr £I• ului 0< 03Av-taa SNIb111: %001. KIN E9 Z9Z LSE Z9Z 1.9Z 0E9 1917 9LE Old° SNIb2117V101 %Z'0 %WO %VD %WI- %Z'L %E'9 %6'68 9 91. ZL £b ZE 991. ELVZ 0 I, 0 L L Z 89 0 0 E 9 I. LZ LZZ• Z tr £ EL 6 LZ LVE 0 E Z LL 6 81 60Z Z 0 Z Z 0 LL O£Z L £ 0 E 8 OS 999 L P Z 9 tr 6Z L 1 V 0 L 0 Z 0 OL 99£ 037711NNb NM 0E NVH11:131V32iJ NIW OE - NIW LZ NMOZ-NM LI. NIW OL - NM 9 NIW S - NIW L AV-130 ON 10140 % ,7V101 111d1AIN 00131 00 ARI ane SNS 1AI/ NSA :31H'1 S3INNIW IOU t1381413AON Nouma110 A8 SAV130 WILL 30 A3143110321A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Funding Agreement No. 02-45-040, Between the Department of California Highway Patrol and Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve entering into Agreement No. 02-45- 040, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, with the Department of California Highway Patrol to provide overtime supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol program in Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program is operated as a joint venture between the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans), Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE). RC SAFE is responsible for administering the program and Caltrans and the CHP jointly provide daily field supervision to ensure service performance, The CHP has assigned and staffed for the dedicated purpose of supporting the Riverside County FSP program with two full-time traffic officers. However, the nature of the FSP program (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m, to 7:00 p.m.) may require the CHP officers• to work overtime. The attached funding agreement provides for the reimbursement from RC SAFE to the CHP of those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. The agreement provides for a maximum of 480 overtime hours for FY 01-02 at the State established rate of $49.31 per hour. The total amount of the agreement shall not exceed $23,668.80. In the event the CHP is granted a rate increase by the State, RC SAFE would be required to reimburse the CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount exceed the contract maximum of $23,668.80. It should be noted that not less than 80% of the cost of this agreement will be financed by State FSP funds. 000048 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2001-02 Amount: $ 23,668.80 Source of Funds: State of California Dept. of Budget Adjustment: Y Transportation GLA No.: 201-45-81016 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 000049 Agreement No. 02-45-040 FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2001, by and between the California Highway Patrol, hereinafter called CHP, and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies hereinafter called RC -SAFE. GENERAL INFORMATION: This agreement pertains to the overtime supervision and operation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County. Section 2401 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) shall make adequate provisions for patrol of the highways at all times of the day and night. This section is interpreted to mean that the Commissioner is given broad discretion in determining the means of providing adequate patrol, including the use of Riverside County FSP vehicles. Section 21718(a)(7) of the CVC is a provision which specifically allows the CHP to be responsible for FSP stopping on freeways for the purpose of rapid removal of impediments to traffic. The Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC -SAFE) has the ability to provide local matching funds as required by state Budget Change Proposal (BCP) for FSPs on freeways within Riverside County, which qualified the county to participate in the state FSP program. Riverside County FSP will assist in transportation system management efforts, provide traffic congestion relief, and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of improving air quality. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The Riverside County FSP program is intended to be funded with revenues derived from Safe and State Budget Change Proposal funds, known as BCP for the day to day contractor operation. In addition to this it is necessary to fund CHP overtime for operator field supervision, administrative duties, and other field duties required to maintain the expected high level of FSP operational service. 000050 2. Should this agreement be terminated under paragraph 2 of section B, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, RC -SAFE agrees to reimburse the CHP for those reasonable costs incurred and associated with the program overtime supervision and administrative duties as defined in this agreement up to the point of termination. 3. This agreement may only be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 4. The term of this agreement is from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002. 5. The Coordinators of this agreement are shown below: a) RC -SAFE Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst II 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California (909) 787-7141 b) Califomia Highway Patrol - Inland Communications Center Lisa Sowell, Lieutenant 847 E. Brier Drive San Bernardino, Califomia 92408 (909) 388-8000 6. RC -SAFE agrees to reimburse CHP in accordance with the following schedule: 480 hours of available overtime during 01/02 fiscal year. Reimbursed at $ 49.31 per hour. For a total of $23,668.80 for 01/02 fiscal year. 7. In the event CHP is granted a rate increase, RC -SAFE agrees to reimburse CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount exceed $23,668.80. 8. CHP shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless RC -SAFE, its subsidiaries, and its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all liability and expenses, including, without limitation, defense cost and legal fees, and claims for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, bodily injury, death, personal injury or property damage arising from the performance of the work described herein, but only to the extent such liability, expenses and claims for damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the CHP, its officers, agents or employees. 000051 9. RC -SAFE shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CHP, its subsidiaries, and its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all liability and expenses, including, without limitation, defense cost and legal fees, and claims for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, bodily injury, death, personal injury or property damage arising from the performance of the work described herein, but only to the extent such liability, expenses and claims for damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the RC -SAFE, its officers, agents or employees. 10. The contracting parties hereto shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the contract in accordance with the Govemment Code Section 10532. In addition, RC -SAFE and CHP may be subject to the examination and audit by representatives of either party. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters directly related to this contract. B. RC -SAFE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. RC -SAFE shall reimburse CHP for those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the Riverside County FSP operations as outlined in paragraph fi of Section A. 2. RC -SAFE shall have the authority to cancel the funding of this program with 90 days written notification. C. CHP RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. CHP has assigned and staffed for supervision of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol with two full-time traffic officers as per the state BCP. The level of supervision conducted by the CHP under this agreement shall be at the discretion of the CHP. 2. All personnel providing services shall be State employees under the sole discretion, supervision, and regulation of the CHP. Said personnel shall work out of the appropriate CHP facilities as designated by the CHP. At no time shall any State employee assigned to the Riverside County FSP program be considered employees, agents, officials, or volunteers of RCSAFE. 3. CHP overtime duties shall include but not be limited to: a) The daily field supervision of FSP operators. GOO d5,2 b) Investigating complaints from the public regarding a Riverside County FSP contractor or operator. c) Performing all necessary driver's license and background checks on all Riverside County FSP operators. d) Inspecting all tow trucks on a periodic basis. e) Performing necessary daily project field supervision, program management and the oversight of the quality of the contractors' services. f) Provide training to all Riverside County FSP contractors and operators. g) Approve all contractor billing prior to RC -SAFE payment. h) Provide representation for the FSP Technical Committee. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Eric Haley Administrative Services Officer Executive Director Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Counsel Date r 0Q0053 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Local Transportation Funds Allocation for Local Streets and Roads for the Palo Verde Valley Apportionment Area STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate the FY 01-02 Local Transportation Funds for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley area as shown on the attached table. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The estimated FY 01-02 apportionment of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for the Palo Verde Valley area is $.736,877. In addition, $592,958 in unallocated funds were carried over from FY 00-01, increasing the total funds available to the area to $1,329,835. The Commission approved the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) Short Range Transit Plan on June 11, 2001, allocating $207,698 to PVVTA. On December 12, 2001, the Commission allocated an additional $156,700 to PVVTA to fund their new fixed route service. Therefore, a balance of $965,437 is available for local streets and roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley. The Palo Verde Valley apportionment area is the only area in the County in which LTF funds are still allocated for streets and roads purposes. The attached table shows the allocations for the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside based upon a formula previously approved by the Commission. Population figures are from the State Department of Finance E-5 report dated January 1, 2001 for FY 01- 02, and have been adjusted to credit the prison population (3,637) at Chuckawala to the County. Attachment 000054 ALLOCATION OF LTF FUNDS FOR STREETS AND ROADS PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA FY 2001-02 AVAILABLE TOTAL LESS FOR STREETS AGENCY POPULATION PERCENTAGE SHARE PVVTA AND ROADS Blythe 17,314 63.7% $847,745 $182,199 $665,646 Riverside Co. 9.846 36.3% $48g,481 $182.199, $300,282 TOTAL 27,160 100.0% 81,329,835 $364,398 8965,437 NOTE: Population for City of Blythe excludes prison population of 3,837 for Chuckawala which is included in County population. Prison population obtained from State Dept. of Finance, Demographics Division. Approved by RCTC: JR: 11/29/01 000055 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Cathedral City STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to grant the City of Cathedral City a five -month extension to May 31, 2002, to complete the Downtown Pedestrian Bridge project; and, a five -month extension to February 28, 2002, to complete the Ague Caliente School Area sidewalk project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Cathedral City was allocated S97,000 in FY 99-00 SB 821 funds for the construction of the Downtown Pedestrian Bridge project. The bridge has been designed, and the City has gone out to bid, but the bid was rejected as being non- responsive. The City requested and was granted a six-month extension to December 31, 2001, to complete the project. However, the project has now been reconfigured to exclude work by City forces. In addition, the project has been expanded to include construction of a sidewalk connection to Perez Road and an improved bus stop on Perez Road. These additions will enhance the usage and create a multi -modal pedestrian access facility. But, they require the acquisition of a pedestrian easement from the commercial property owner. That easement has been negotiated and is now in the process of being signed. Also, the added enhancements required additional time to coordinate with the property owner of the Perez Industrial Park, Sunline Transit and with Edison for power requirements for the walkway and bridge lighting. The revised project plans and specifications are nearly complete. They, as well as an issued Flood Control District permit, are expected to be completed and in hand by the end of January 2002. The City anticipated that the Notice to Proceed will be issued in March 2002, and construction should be underway by mid -March and completed by mid -May. Therefore, the City is requesting an additional five -month extension to May 31, 2002, to complete the Downtown Pedestrian Bridge project. 000056 The City of Cathedral City was also allocated $19,500 in FY 00-01 SB 821 funds for construction of the Agua Caliente Elementary School sidewalk project. This project is essentially in three segments, and City forces have completed one segment. The City requested and received a three-month extension to September 30, 2001, to complete the project. Encroachment clearance problems and redesign due to ADA standards have delayed the sidewalks on the two easements on each side of the school. Bids are now in hand for the work on the westerly easement, which will now include unanticipated grading and retaining walls to meet ADA requirements. This work is expected to start during the school holiday break. Work on the easterly easement has been delayed due to coordination efforts with the City' s Housing Improvement program (for easement wall construction) and for removal of a long standing encroachment into the easement. Construction and improvement of this section will take place during January 2002 and should be completed by the end of February 2002. Therefore, the City is requesting a five - month extension to February 28, 2002, to complete the Agua Caliente Elementary School sidewalk project. 000057 Cathedral tity December 18, 2001 Mr. Jerry Riverra Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, Ca. 92501 Re: City of Cathedral City S13-821 Projects: Request for Time Extensi Pedestrian Bridge Project, and School Area Sidewalk Project. Dear Jerry; Please consider this letter to be the request of the City of Cathedral City fora time extension for the completion of the above two projects. The time extensio s are needed for completion of outstanding tasks described in more detail below. Pedestrian Bridge at the North Cathedral Channel (SB 821: FY 99-00) The project was advertised and bids were received for furnishing the bride structure to be set on a foundation to be constructed by City farces. The s that were received were determined to be non -responsive. The project has now been reconfigured to exclude work by City forces. addition, the project has been expanded to include construction of a sad connection to Perez Road and an improved bus stop on Perez Road. Th additions will enhance the usage and create a multi modal pedestrian a 5 facility. But they required the acquisition of a pedestrian easement frr n e commercial property owner. That easement has been negotiated and is raw n the process of being signed. The added enhancements required additional time to coordinate with tllie property owner of the Perez Industrial Paris, Sunline Transit and with Edison power requirements for the walkway and bridge lighting. The revised project plans and specifications are nearly complete. They, as V as an issued Flood Control District permit, are expected to be completed and n hand by the end of January, 2002. It is anticipated that the Notice to Prr: will be issued in March, 2002, after a bid period. Construction shoi4d underway by mid March and completed by mid -May. 68-700 AVENIDA LALO GUERRERO • CATHEDRAL CITY. CA 92234 • 760/770-0340 • FAX: 760/ f 02-1460 p000r58 This project has_ moved ahead in good faith, but has been improvements, the rejected bid, our small staff size and other Therefore we request an additional 5 month extension, until J The City has expended funds for design, soil engineer' design, and other items for the pedestrian bridge. We will billing within the next 10 days. Aqua Caliente School area sidewalks (SB 821: FY 00-01) The Agua Caliente school area sidewalks are well along. end of the school properly have been installed by City the two easements on each side of the school have encroachment clearance problems and redesign due to ADA now in hand for the work in the westerly easement whi unanticipated grading and retaining walls due to ADA req expected to start during the school holiday break. Work on the easterly easement has been delayed due to the City's Housing Improvement program for construction one side of the easement, and for removal of a encroachment into the easement. Sidewalk construction and easement should begin late January. Therefore, we request a 5 month extension for the school June 1, 2002.. This should be more than enough to co with the bridge project. funds have been expended on progress billing will be sent to you within the next ten days. by the added ity-wide priorities. ne 1, 2002. survey, electrical bm;t a progress walks at the south The sidewalks irk been delayed by ndards. Bids are writ now include nts. Work;here ;s ;nation efforts with a property gall on stanmgi fiance provement of this ewalk project until this project. As proiect, and a Your favorable decision about these two projects is sr - y appreciated. Please contact Bill Bayne at 760/770-0360, or the undersign =. , , at 760V770-0350. if you have questions or require additional information about r' r of these very he important SB-821 projects. Sincerely, David R. Faris!, PE Director of Public Worsts 1 City Engineer cc: Bill Bayne File No. PED 6.20 i i 000059 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Transit Operators' Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the FY 00-01 Transit Operators' Report as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This report presents county -wide public transportation ridership, operating, and financial information for FY 00-01 for the eight public operators. Attachment 1 provides data and performance statistics for all eight of the public operators. As part of the Transit Operator Performance Improvement Program, the following eight performance indicators were established. 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour - should increase no more than CPI; 2) Farebox Recovery Ratio - per RCTC policy and PUC requirements; 3) Subsidy per Passenger - should increase no more than CPI; 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile - should increase no more than CPI; 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour - should increase no more than CPI; 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile - should increase no more than CPI; 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour - % increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater; and 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile - % increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater. The first two performance indicators: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour and Farebox Recovery Ratio are mandatory per the Public Utilities Commission. In addition, transit operators must meet a minimum of three of the remaining six performance indicators. As a result, it should be noted that not all of the operators are tracking all of the performance indicators. Items not tracked or information that is not available are indicated by an "= o n the spreadsheets. O opaffa c A total of 14,338,491 passenger trips were provided during FY 00-01 (612,031 ADA/Paratransit and 13,726,460 on fixed route services). Operating cost per revenue hour for fixed route service (excludes the cost of commuter rail) averaged $78.44. Costs ranged from a low of $33.82 (City of Corona) to a high of $93.62 (SunLine Transit Agency). Operating cost per revenue hour for ADA/Paratransit averaged $43.42. Costs ranged from $33.33 (Palo Verde Valley Transit) to a high of $53.61 (SunLine Transit Agency). A total of 183,056,467 passenger miles were traveled at a net operating cost of $47,096,031. 000061 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT FY 00/01 FY 00/01 ADA/Paratransit Annual Actuals City of City of City of City of Riverside Riverside SunLine Banning Beaumont Corona Palo Verde Specialized Transit Transit Total - Ail Data Elements - ADA/Paratrarlsit Transit Transit Transit Valley Transit Transit Agency Agency Providers Unlinked Passenger Trips 8,707 29,449 74,582 21,814 141,497 225,583 110,399' 612,031 Passenger Miles -- -- 336,698 - 552,087 1,549,755 2,409,656 4,848,196 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 1,972 6,652 18,606 5,627 33,792 101,770 44,015 212,434 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 29,953 77,155 279,251 - 487,433 1,618,380 1,066,113 3.558,285 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 31,940 -- 302,349 82,602 552,090 1,618,380 1,164,263 3,731,624 Collisions 1 -- 5 -- 6 24 7 43 Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures 6 -- 24 - 19 137 83 269 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 1 - 15 -- 2 129 186 333 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 8,141 -- 80,870 - 147.097 213,673 90,497 540,278 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips 7,905 - 72,753 -- 141,498 106,427 84,051 412,634 Total Operating Expenses $70,130 $272,683 ' $627,044 $187,537 $1,428,965 $4,278,191 $2,359,685 $9,224,234 Total Passenger Fare Revenues $6,549 $28,884 $100,850 $27,339 $135,639 $167,413 $198,231 $664,905 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $63,581 $243,798 $526,194 $160,198 $1,293,326 $4,110,778 $2,161,454 $8,559,329 POOt nalnce S#at4ti0S, - ADA Paratransit "" "p ,,,,, Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $35,56 $40.99 $33.70 $33.33 $42.29 $42,04 $53.61 $43.42 Farebox Recovery Ratio 9.34% 10.59% 16.08% 14.58% 9.49% 3.91% 8.40% 7.21% Subsidy per Passenger $7.30 $8.28 $7.06 $7.34 $9.14 $18.22 $19.58 $13.99 Subsidy per Passenger Mile -- - $1.56 - $2.34 $2.65 $0.90 - Subsidy per Revenue Hour $32.24 $36.66 $28.28 $28.47 $38.27 $40.39 $49.11 $40.29 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $2.12 $3.16 $1.88 - $2,65 $2.54 $2,03 $2.41 Passengers per Revenue Hour 4.42 4A3 4.01 3.88 4.19 .2.22 2.51 2.88 Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.29 0.38 0.27 - 0.29 0.14 0.10 0.17 Revenue Mlles Between Collissions -- -- 55,850 -- 81,239 67,433 152,302 - % Trips On -Time - -- 89.96% - - -- 92.88% - Complaints per 1,000 Passengers 0.0001 - 0.0002 - 0.0000 0.0006 0.0017 - Total Miles Between Roadcalls -- -- -- -- - -- - - 000062 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT FY 00101 Fixed route implemented 2101 FY 00/01 Fixed Route Annual Actuals Commuter City of City of Rail - Commuter City of Riverside SunLine Banning Beaumont Riverside Rail - IEOC Corona Transit Transit Total - All Data Elements - Fixed Route Transit Transit Line Line Transit Agency Agency Providers Unlinked Passenger Trips 231.611 54,417 1.967,160 1,196,989 13,560 6,520,223 3,742.500 13,726,461 Passenger Miles -- -- 73,898,039 37,838,731 54,923 42,659,816 23,756,762 178,208,271 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 10,465 5,112 -- -- 5,420 312,973 135,351 469,321 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 151,020 71,690 333,188 317,637 82,110 4.863,256 2,157,744 7,976,645 Total Actual Vehide Miles 155,932 -- -- -- 86,030 5,468,297 2,259,350 7,969,609 Collisions -- -- -- •- 0 54 7 61 Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures 23 -- -- -- 2 1,093 178 1,296 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 12 -- -- -- 2 1,297 469 1,780 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 92,623 -- -- -- -- 319,273 142,665 554,561 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips - -- -- - -- 290,732 135,908 426,640 Total Operating Expenses S620,886 $209,104 $10.765,900 S7,034,000 S183,322 $23,131.556 $12,670,956 $54,615,724 Total Passenger Fare Revenues $105,609 $22,553 $5,279,397 $3,235,874 $8,906 $5,158,110 $2,268,573 $16,079,022 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $515,277 $186,551 $5,486,503 $3,798,126 $174,416 $17,973,446 $10,402,383 $38,536,702 Performance Statistics - Fixed Route r Operating Cost Per Revenue Flour $59.33 $40.91 -- -- 333.82 $73.91 $93.62 $116.37 Farebox RecoVey Ratio 17,01% 10.79% 49.04% 46,00% 4.86% 22.30% 17.90% 29.44% Subsidy per Passenger $2.22 $3.43 $2.79 $3.17 $12.86 $2.76 $2.78 $2.81 Subsidy per Passenger Mile -- -- -- -- $3.18 $0.42 $0.44 $0.22 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $49.24 $36.49 -- -- $32.i8 $57.43 $76.85 $82.11 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $3.41 $2,60 $16.47 $11.96 $2.12 $3.70 $4.82 $4,83 Passengers per Revenue Hour 22.13 10.65 -- -- 2.50 20.83 27,65 29.25 Passengers per Revenue Mile 1.53 0.76 5.90 3.77 0.17 1.34 1.73 1.72 Revenue Miles Between Collissions - -- -- -- 82,110 90,060 308,249 % Trips On -Time -- -- -- -- -- 91.06% 95.2637% -- Complaints per 1,000 Passengers -- - -- -- 0,0001 0.0002 0.0001 -- Total Miles Between Roadcalls -- -- - -- 41,055 0 0 -- 'Excluding Rail Operating Costs, average operating cost per revenue hour = $78.84 000r 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Request to Amend the City of Riverside' s Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Short Range Transit Plan and Disbursement of Local Transportation Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the City of Riverside` s FY 01-02 Short Range Transit Plan; and, 2) Authorize the disbursement of $83,172 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost of repairs and preventative maintenance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Riverside' s Special Transportation Services (Riverside) is requesting that $83,172 in Local Transportation Funds be released to cover operating costs. In FY 00-01, Riverside exceeded its original transit budget in the amount of $45,433 due to a delay in receiving new CNG vehicles. The delay caused Riverside to continue using its older, high mileage fleet resulting in additional maintenance costs. For FY 01-02, Riverside is anticipating that they will need $37,739 to cover the cost of miscellaneous automotive repairs and preventative maintenance. Riverside has provided transportation services since 1975. They currently operate 19 vehicles within the city limits and provide approximately 142,000 one-way passenger trips per year. Riverside' s City Council is aware of staff s request and approved it at their December 4, 2001 Council Meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: NIA Amount: $83,172 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: NIA Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 000064 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) Rideshare to Rails Grant STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Amend the FY01/02 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to add the MSRC Rideshare to Rails Program; 2) Approve the agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the receipt of $96,982 of MSRC grant funds, subject to legal counsel review; and 3) Authorize the expenditure of $62,963 in Local Transportation Funds previously allocated. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: in August 2001, RCTC partnered with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) in the development of a MSRC grant proposal to alleviate parking congestion at three of the Riverside County Metrolink Stations, Riverside -Downtown, La Sierra, and West Corona. The Riverside County "Rideshare to Rails" Program proposes two elements to relieve these parking impacted stations: 1) Offering direct incentives to Metrolink monthly pass holders who carpool from home to a rail station in Riverside County; and 2) Expanding a RTA express bus route from Moreno Valley to the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station. In November 2001, RCTC was awarded $96,982 in MSRC grant funds for this proposal. MSRC funding requires a minimum 50% co -funding. Subject to approval by their hoard, RTA has agreed to provide $43,000 (see attached RTA letter). RCTC Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the expenditure of $62,963 in previously allocated Western County Commuter Rail Local Transportation Funds to serve as RCTC`s co -funding. Financial information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2001 /02 Amount: $62,963 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 12/27/01 og00a66 Riverside transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 _ Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684.1007 August 30, 2001 Ms. Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 42501 RE: Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee Dear Ms. Wiggins: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) supports the Riverside County Transportation Commission's MSRC application for Metrolink express shuttle service. RTA's participation, however, is contingent upon approval by the RTA's Board of Directors and an amendment to the Short Range Transit Plan. The RTA does have sufficient funds available to provide the S43,000 in matching funds. Please feel free to contact me if you need further information. Sincerely, da-44/ (..4,C<3 Larry Rubio General Manager 000067 ME 23 Attachment 1 - Statement of Work Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766/02026 Project Purpose The use of commuter rail in lieu of single occupant automobile trips is an important element of this region's efforts to reduce both air pollution and traffic congestion. However, many commuter rail stations within the South Coast region are "parking impacted", meaning that they are unable to accommodate all rail patrons' personal cars during the peak morning commute period. The purpose of this Contract is to develop, through the use of financial incentives, rideshare programs that increase carpooling, vanpooling, or other forms of ridesharing to and from specific parking -impacted rail stations within Riverside County. The following Statement of Work is provided by the CONTRACTOR and becomes an integral part of the Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to perform the Statement of Work within the term of the Contract and to expend funds as set forth in Attachment 2 - Cost Schedule. Statement of Work The expenditure of funds and all work pursuant to this contract shall be consistent with RFP 2002-06 and CONTRACTOR's proposal dated August 31, 2001 with the exception that MSRC funds will not be used to apply rideshare incentives for Pedley Station users and MSRC funds will not be used to pay for bus driver salaries. The following tasks will be performed by the CONTRACTOR. Task 1. Develop and Implement Marketing and Outreach Plan CONTRACTOR shall provide marketing and outreach services for the Rideshare Incentive and Expanded Express Bus Trips as described in Tasks 2 and 3 below. Marketing and outreach activities shall include all efforts described on pages 8 and 9 of CONTRACTOR's proposal. CONTRACTOR shall coordinate with other Rideshare Programs to ensure that incentive programs are not duplicated and explore the possibility of joint marketing efforts. Deliverables: • Articles (copies provided to MSRC staff) in Metrolink and RCTC newsletters. • Creation and display of portable bulletin boards advertising subject services at Riverside County stations. • Direct mailing of promotional literature (copies provided to MSRC staff) to 700+ previous survey respondents. • Four -fold carpool registration brochures (copies provided to MSRC staff) distributed via mail, at stations, and online. • Articles featured on various websites designed to attract current non -riders. • Special promotional campaigns. • Advertisements (copies provided to MSRC staff) in local newspapers. • Stuffer advertisements in City/County utility bill mailings. • Advertisements via Moreno Valley cable TV. 0oo06s Attachment 1 - Statement of Work (cont'd) Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766102026 Task 2. Develop and Implement Rideshare Incentive Program CONTRACTOR shall, in cooperation with its subcontractor ITS Consulting, plan, develop procedures for, and implement a program to apply direct rideshare incentives for Metrolink riders using the Riverside -Downtown, La Sierra, and West Corona stations. Rideshare incentives shall be offered to new and existing ridesharer's for a minimum of twelve (12) months as follows: ■ Designation of special parking spaces for carpool enrollees; • One-time discount on Metrolink monthly pass in the amount of $165 per NEW carpooler. This discount will not be distributed until the new carpooler has participated for three months. New carpooler must carpool at least four days per week; ■ One-time discount on Metrolink monthly pass in the amount of $50 for each EXISTING carpooler that recruits a new carpooler to their carpool. This discount will not be distributed until the existing carpooler has participated for three months: Existing carpooler must carpool at least four days per week. CONTRACTOR will continue rideshare program beyond the initial minimum twelve month period by maintaining designated carpool parking spaces and the recruitment bonus incentive for a minimum of an additional three years. CONTRACTOR will survey rideshare participants in order to determine the effect of the project on rail station parking, as well as the project's ability to attract additional rail users. CONTRACTOR will survey participants after each of the first three months of program participation (three surveys per participant). In addition, CONTRACTOR will complete a follow-up survey that documents prior commute mode, trip length, and station access mode and compare them to commuter pattems following the program, identifying benefits of the program and emission reductions. Task 3. Develop and Implement New Express Bus Trips In cooperation with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), CONTRACTOR shall see to the expansion of existing RTA Moreno Valley express bus service to the Riverside -Downtown station. Expansion will consist of one additional morning departure (Moreno Valley to Riverside) and the initiation of two afternoon express bus departures (Riverside to Moreno Valley). With the additional routes resulting from this program, total morning departures will be three. Total afternoon departures will be two. Attachment 1 - Statement of Work (cont'd) 000069 Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766/02026 CONTRACTOR will continue level of express bus service beyond the initial twelve month period for a minimum of three additional years or as long as the express bus routes meet the 20% farebox recovery standard (20% of cost of providing the service is recovered through fares). CONTRACTOR will survey express bus riders in order to determine the effect of the project on rail station parking, as well as the project's ability to attract additional rail users. CONTRACTOR will survey participants after each of the first three months of program participation (three surveys per participant). In addition, CONTRACTOR will complete a follow-up survey that documents prior commute mode, trip length, and station access mode and compare them to commuter patterns following the program, identifying benefits of the program and emission reductions. Task 4. Project Management and Reporting Monthly Reporting — CONTRACTOR shall prepare and submit monthly progress reports that: a) summarize and analyze project results, achievement of milestones, preliminary findings, and recommendations for completion of the project; b) identify any unexpected circumstances or potential problems with the project, especially those that may delay the project schedule; and c) provide recommendations to resolve them. Hand copy marketing materials shall also be submitted with progress reports, as well as initial (first three month) survey results. Progress reports that do not comply shall be returned to the CONTRACTOR as inadequate and invoice payments may be withheld until such time that a satisfactory report is submitted. Final Reports - CONTRACTOR shall submit a Final Report in the format provide by MSRC staff that shall contain, at a minimum: a) an executive summary and b) a detailed discussion of the results and conclusions of the project, including recommendations for future applications. In addition, the final report will contain a discussion of the following items, as applicable: a) cost effectiveness of the trip reduction strategy demonstrated; b) improvements in efficiency or usefulness generated by the demonstration; c) calculation of emission reductions (both those received during the demonstration period and future potential reductions); and d) applicability to other jurisdictions or markets. Final report shall include results of follow-up survey discussed in Tasks 3 and 4. Attachment 1 - Statement of Work - Project Schedule Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766/02026 The following items are deliverables under the contract terms: Task Description Start Date Completion Date Contract Execution February, 2002 Develop and implement Marketing and Outreach Plan April, 2002 August, 2003 2 Develop and Implement Rideshare Incentive Program February, 2002 August, 2003 3 Develop and implement New Express Bus Trips February, 2002 August, 2003 4 Project Management and Reporting Monthly Progress Reports, including survey results May, 2002 August, 2003 Final Report, including follow-up survey August, 2003 Hardware: None In the event the CONTRACTOR files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent or discontinues this project, the following items revert to the AQMD for deposit into the AB 2766 Discretionary Fund account: None. 0000'71 Attachment 1 - Cost Schedule Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766/02026 PROJECT COSTS BY TASK Task Name MSRC Costs RCTC Costs RTA Costs Total Costs Task 1. Develop and Implement Marketing and Outreach Plan Advertising $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 Direct Mailing (700 pcs) 3,500 - - 3,500 Task 2. Develop and Implement Rideshare incentive Program RCTC Labor Program Mgr. ($50hr x 120 hrs) - 6,000 - 6,000 Staff Analyst ($30hr x 240 hrs) - 7,200 - 7,200 Equipment and Supplies - - - Painting and Signage 1,800 - - 1,800 Parkin_g Permits 600 - - 600 Subcontractor ITS Admin. Asst. ($44.42Ihrx240 hrs) - 10,661 - 10,661 Security Guards ($13.76/hrx720 hrs) 9907 - 9907 Parking Incentive 35,500 - - 35,500 Printing Registration Brochure (3000 pcs) and trainbucks 20,000 - - 20,000 Task 3. Develop and Implement New Express Bus Trips RTA Bus Operator ($89 hr x 975 hrs) - - 43,878 43,878 Fare Subsidy 25,582 18,295 - 43,877 Task 4. Project Management and Reporting Monthly and Final Reports (staff Analyst - $30 hr x 30 hrs) 900 900 Totals $96,982 $62,963 $43,878 $203,823 Percentage 47.6% 30.9% 21.5% 100% 1:00072 Attachment 1 - Cost Schedule (cont'd) Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766/02026 CONTRACTOR shall receive payments in the amounts shown above only upon completion of task deliverables as specified in the Statement of Work and proper invoicing. Upon approval, payment shall be made according to this Contract, minus a 10% retention to ensure completion and submission of an acceptable final report. f"' _ 000073 Attachment 3 - Supporting Documents Riverside County Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR Contract No. AB 2766/02026 The supporting documents attached hereto as Attachment 3, represent obligations of the CONTRACTOR. Nothing herein shall be construed as an assumption of duties or obligations by the AQMD or granting any rights to third parties against the AQMD. 1. Co -Funding Documentation RTA-$43,878 2. Certificate of Insurance 000074 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) for Consultant Services to Provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for the Proposed New 1,000 Space Parking Structure at the Corona Main Metrolink Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION.. This item is for the Commission to approve: 11 The preparation and advertisement of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to provide engineering and environmental studies for the proposed new 1,000 space parking structure at the Corona Main Metrolink Station; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC staff, City of Corona staff, and Ca'trans staff, to review, evaluate, and rank ail RFP's received; and, 3) Negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant(s) and return to the Commission with a contract recommendation. BACKGROUND /NFORIW TION: Congestion along the SR 60 and 91 is projected to continue to increase which will likely stimulate a growing demand for Metrolink services in the future. To meet this project demand and provide a level of service that encourages ongoing Metrolink ridership, the Commission requested the development of a Station Management Plan, In May 2001, the draft Station Management Plan, prepared by Carl Schiermeyer Consulting Services, was presented to the Commission. The following are some of the main highlights of the Plan: 1. Over the next 10 years, Metrolink ridership is projected to grow 40% systemwide, with 110% growth on the two lines that directly serve Riverside County today, the Riverside line and the 1E0C line. In fact, in just the last 12 months, ridership on the two lines has grown 36%. As a result, the parking space utilization rate at the Riverside County Metrolink stations is near 90%, which creates station capacity issues. The current parking 0000%`r situation at the Riverside -La Sierra station is one example of what lies ahead as a result of the success of Metrolink in this region. By 2010, 5 out of our 6 Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking deficits. 2. Train operations are also expected to more than double by 2011 (from 25 daily trains to 54 daily trains). Access to Metrolink is an important issue for our customers. With too few parking spaces and not enough connecting transit service, getting to the train can be the toughest part of the trip. 3. In addition to ridership projections, related to existing service, and the subsequent parking demands, two additional opportunities will provide additional sources of demand within the next 10 years, the expansion of commuter rail service to Perris on the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) and the development of transit oriented developments (TOD). In an effort to meet the future Riverside County Metrolink ridership needs, staff submitted an application for $11 million, in the 2002 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), to construct a 1,000 space parking structure at the proposed new Corona Main Metrolink Station. The application was forwarded to Caltrans and made the Statewide Proposed Project Listing. The funding is scheduled to be presented to the CTC, for a vote of approval, in April 2002. In anticipation of the CTC approval of the funding for the proposed new Corona Main Parking Structure, staff is requesting at this time that the Commission authorize staff to: 1. Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide engineering and environmental studies for the proposed new 1,000 space parking structure at the Corona Main Metrolink Station; 2. Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC staff, City of Corona staff, and Caltrans staff, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; and, 3. Negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant(s) and return to the Commission with a contract recommendation. The schedule for the selection process is proposed as follows: Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Proposals January 14, 2002 Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline February 7,2002 Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms February 21, 2002 Interview top three (3) qualified firms March 7, 2002 Committee Recommendation to Commission March 25, 2002 000076 B 4 TtESDA . DEC:EMBER I8.200i " Inland road work approved TRANSPORTATION: Gov. Davis' gas -tax spending plan also includes Metrolink expansion. BY DAVID DANELSKI THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE A safer Highway 138 in the High Desert, a parking struc- ture for a future train station in Corona and improvements to ease congestion on Highway 91 were included in Gov_ Davis' $892 million spending plan for gas -tax dollars. Topping the list is $41.3 mil- lion to help pay for work on Highway 138 between Inter- state 15 and Los Angeles Coun- ty. The highway, most of whi has one lane in each direction and is known for head-on colli- sions, would be widened to four lanes, two each way, divided by a median. Construction would begin in 2007. Highway 138 has been desig- nated a highway safety corridor because of the number of fatal collisions on it. Six projects, half involving Metrolink, are aimed at reliev- ing traffic jams on the regularly gridlocked Highway 91. The projects, which tap state and federal gas -tax dollars, will be forwarded to the state Trans- portation Commission for final action. "There is a lot more to do," said Riverside County Supervi- sor John 7avaglione, who is chairman of the county trans- portation agency. "But the gov- ernor's position was very favor- able to us." Davis' funding proposals in- clude: HIGHWAY 91 ■ $3.9 million to go toward $19.2 million in Green River Road interchange improve- ments and to help build an east- bound merging lane. ■ $7.9 million to add 3,000 feet of new westbound lane just west of the Riverside County line, near the toll lane en- trances. Orange County trans- portation officials are negotiat- ing with toll -lane owners for permission to build improve- ments in the area. The toll lane company, under its franchise agreement with the state, has the right to veto certain im- provements near the toll lanes. ■ 320,000 to help plan a new $24.1 million connector to High- way 71. This relatively small amount of money would help the project gain future funding, said John Sandford, spokes- man for the Riverside County on Commission. 11 million for a 1,000-space parking structure serving a new train station expected to be completed next year on North Main Street in Corona. ■ 312 million to help buy three locomotives and two pas- senger cars for a new Riverside - to -Fullerton -to -Los Angeles route expected to start next spring. ■ $5 million for a commuter train station in Yorba Linda. SAN BERNARDINO (AUNTY ■ $19.9 million for a truck climbing lane on northbound Interstate 15 north of Barstow. ■ $2.5 million toward the re- construction of the Interstate 10-Tippecanoe Avenue junc- tion. ■ 319.9 million toward a $137.1 million, four -lane ex- pressway on Highway 58 fit the High Desert near Kramer Junc- tion, plus $3.9 million to help convert the highway to an ex- pressway in the community of Hinkley. ■ $4 million toward a $975.9 million project to make Highway 395 a four- or six -lane expressway starting north of Interstate 15. Reach Dovid Donelski of 19091782-7569 or ddaneskifte.com 000077 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update Regarding Federal Transportation Appropriations and TEA- 21 Reauthorization BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Cliff Madison, RCTC' s Federal Lobbyist, will give the Commission an update on the status of Federal Transportation Appropriations and TEA-21 reauthorization. 000078 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2002 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager Darren Kettle, Director of Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Presentation on the National 1-10 Freight Corridor BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Dilara Rodriguez of Caltrans will present an overview of the National 1-10 Freight Corridor Project. The project is a national study among the eight states between California and Florida to advocate the 1-10 Corridor for goods movement. Dilara is the Project Coordinator/TAC Chair for the State of California on this project. One major milestone is to set up two stakeholder meetings in each state. Caltrans is proposing one in Los Angeles County and one in the Inland Empire. 000079 FREIGHT CORRIDOR QUICK FACTS The National I-10 Freight Corridor Study 11301 Olympic Blvd., #413, West Los Angeles, CA 90064 1-866-4-1-I0-FWY www.il0freightstudy.org The National I-10 Freight Corridor Study is a joint effort by eight state Departments of Transportation (DOTS) to analyze multimodal transportation needs and develop a plan for improving the Interstate 10 (I-10) Corridor. I-10 extends coast to coast across eight states - Califomia, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida - and includes 17 major urban areas. The goals of this feasibility study are: 1) To provide an efficient and reliable intermodal transportation system, including an improved highway system, for the movement of goods in international and domestic trade; and 2) To foster development of multimodal freight transportation facilities. I-10 is a corridor of international, national, regional, state and local significance. Not only is this interstate important to communities and facilities on the route, but to those linked to it as well. Cargo moves along I-10 to reach other interstates, international bridges, ports, airports, manufacturing plants and other facilities. Therefore, the development of a plan for the future requires coordination with local, state, regional, and national interests along I-10 and beyond. There is tremendous growth in freight traffic, specifically truck traffic. Trade now accounts for 25 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), up from II percent in 1970. Companies are warehousing fewer goods than in the past. Just -in -time (JIT) delivery of goods has become standard, making companies dependent on rapid cargo delivery. A recent federal study suggests that domestic freight traffic will increase by 85 percent through 2020 and international trade will grow by 115 percent over the same period. Although other modes of transportation, like rail lines, could handle sotne of this cargo in the future, the major means of transport is expected to be trucks. h 2001 2002 Corridor 8 Freight Demand Studies By 2020, truck traffic is expected to carry 68 percent of all tonnage moved and represent 82 percent of the value of the freight moved in the United States. While the large volume of truck traffic affects congestion, air quality, highway safety and highway maintenance, it also provides economic development and jobs. Thus, though the focus of this study is freight, all travelers and communities which rely on I-10 will benefit. If truck congestion can be reduced, then travel conditions, air quality and safety will improve. Expediting cargo movements will increase productivity for businesses, benefiting local, state and federal economies. A Steering Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of state DOT and federal transportation officials, direct the I-10 study. To assist these committees, a consultant team, led by Wilbur Smith Associates, has been selected. Ultimately, development of an action plan and improvements to I-10 will depend on you. Your help will be critical to understanding the issues and problems on I-10 and implementing needed improvements. The state DOTS will host Open House Public Meetings along I-10 during February and March 2002. Members of the consulting team will be available at each meeting to answer questions and take comments. Meeting locations and dates are listed on the back of this newsletter. For more information on this project, visit our web site at www.i1Ofreightstudy.org. Members of the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee are listed on the web site. To be added to the mailing list: • Write: The National I-10 Freight Corridor Study 11301 Olympic Blvd., #413 West Los Angeles, California 90064 • Call: 1-866-4-I-10-FWY (1-866-441-0399) or • Log an: www.110freiehtcorridor,org and e-mail us from there. I I I Develop Solutions and Strategies • Public Involvement Activities ■ Public Meetings (February 20th through March 7m) MO summit (Fall 2002) 2003 i Develop and Accept Plans El Corredor National de !a Autopista Interestata110 (1-10) es un esfuerzo junto departe de los ocho Departamentos de Transpose estatales (DOTS) para analizar las necesidades de transpose multi-modales y desarrollar un plan pare mejorar la autopista 1-10. 1-10 extiende de costa a costa por oclto estados California, Arizona, Nueva Mexico, Tejas, Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama y Florida a incluye 17 areas metropolitans. 1-10 es un comador de importancia international, estate!, regional y local ya que conecta los estados unidos, puentes internacionales, puesos y aeropuesos. Parrs mas information, Ilame al 1-866-441-0399 y dcie su mensaje. Alguien le regresara su llamado pare responder a sus preguntas o comentarios. 000'380