HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 24, 2014 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsTIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
1:30 p.m.
Monday, March 24, 2014
BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
'P-COMMITTEE MEMBERS ttlfJ:/
Frank Johnston, Chair I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley
Ben Benoit, Vice Chair/ Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
Deborah Franklin I Art Welch, City of Banning
Karen Spiegel/ Eugene Montanez, City of Corona
Adam Rush I Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale
Scott Mann I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee
Tom Owings I Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley
Berwin Hanna/ Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco
Daryl Busch I Al Landers, City of Perris
Andrew Kotyuk I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
'P-STAFF ttlfJ:/
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
'P-AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ttlfJ:/
Air Quality, Capital Projects,
Communications and Outreach Programs,
lntermodal Programs,
Motorist Services, New Corridors,
Regional Agencies/Regional Planning,
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),
Specific Transit Projects,
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and
Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects
related to Western Riverside County and other
areas as may be prescribed by the Commission.
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
COMM-WRC-00019
RECORDS
Riverside County Transportation Commission
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager
March 19, 2014
Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee Agenda of March 24, 2014
The March 24, 2014 agenda of the WRC Programs and Projects Committee includes items which may
raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action
concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the
past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed.
Agenda Item No. 8 -Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Grouo Inc. for the Completion of the Final
Environmental Impact Report I Environmental Impact Statement and Project Report for the Mid
County Parkway Project
Consultant(s): Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Steve Bichich, Vice President
Agenda Item No. 9 -Agreements for On-Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services
Consu/tant(s): Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
3990 Concourse, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91764
Maurice Murad, Vice President
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.
One Penn Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Lloyd Graham, Senior Vice President
RBF Consulting
3300 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Larry Truman, Vice President
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
l:30p.m.
Monday, March 24, 2014
BOARDROOM
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor
Riverside, California
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials
distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda
items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the
Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website,
www. rctc. orq.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you
need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board
at (951} 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring
that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous
minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote
of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of
items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion,
reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may
terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum
time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may
not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be
distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This
policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during
public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members
may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent
agenda for consideration.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 24, 2014
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-FEBRUARY 24, 2014
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding
an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Committee 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.)
7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT
Pagel
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the Conflict of Interest (COi) Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes
Project (1-15 Express Lanes); and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND
PROJECT REPORT FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT
Page10
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-
018, with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to perform additional studies and
design support for the completion of the final Recirculated Environmental Impact
Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project
Report (PR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an additional amount of
$2,243,505, plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total additional amount of
$2,467,855, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required
for the project;
4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non-
funding related agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the
project; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 24, 2014
Page 3
9. AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES
Page96
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Award the following agreements to provide on-call right of way engineering and
surveying services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the
agreement, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000;
a) Agreement No. 14-31-043-00 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc;
b) Agreement No. 14-31-044-00 with Parsons Brinckerhoff; and
c) Agreement No. 14-31-045-00 with RBF Consulting, a Company of Michael
Baker Corporation (RBF);
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to
contractors under the terms of the agreements; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Page137
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 14-45-084-00 with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service
Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,547,104 in state funding for FY 2013/14;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3} Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. COMMISSIONERS/ STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended
and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled
to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 28, 2014, Board Chambers, First Floor, County
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
March 24, 2014
County of Riverside, District I
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Corona
City of Eastvale
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Perris
City of San Jacinto
City of Wildomar
Absent
%
D
D
D
D
D
LI
Ll
LI
Ll
LI
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET
March 24, 2014
NAME AGENCY_ E MAIL ADDRESS
4-~.A-) ;< ,,<" J:: ~~ .~.~-/ _£. ~-• ~----4~"-q ~"'--~~~A'./
~~,/4-~s/-7 ~-c,L b'
~./~l
~kiie r:i:. '--I , I 'Mt . ----r:? A--yz JL... f ...tfvt _.) -~}-....__
, YJH ,;/')// /1.
J/Lw. '\JS' I N f~Ntf /()~A. Go ( .
~(._ '"loh"-'~ __J Cfa.M/JA -\Jr I J hf/,
,ef,~-/2..H' ~-·~ ~ r ~ -/
_,,, __ -_, t-y~()/t'?Jf1L
J\A:A/<. \ OA[ A-~l+L~'l /)I V-'J1 11 (,(/ ~-·
~fl-////lu111J/ Jl/,ICIV1~&
~ X--VV\ <;;;-.[)/! _p-/2 "' fr1·r-· ./1 v .--TT\.
';/;:J-~ ~# U"_~{A A~, w~
0 \..
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, February 24, 2014
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was
called to order by Chair Andrew Kotyuk at 1:32 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of
Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California,
92501.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Commissioner Frank Johnston led the Western Riverside County Programs
and Projects Committee in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Members/ Alternates Present Members Absent
Marion Ashley
Ben Benoit
Daryl Busch
Deborah Franklin
Berwin Hanna
Kevin Jeffries
Frank Johnston
Andrew Kotyuk
Adam Rush
Karen Spiegel
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Scott Mann
Tom Owings
There were no requests to speak from the public.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-NOVEMBER 25, 2013
M/S/C (Hanna/Franklin) to approve the minutes as submitted.
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
7. IN-LIEU FEE AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CONSERVATION
DISTRICT FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of the agreement with
Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District for compensatory mitigation for the
State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project.
In response to Commissioner Adam Rush's request for the methodology used to
determine the cost, David Thomas clarified there are set fees for acreage and habitat,
including oak trees.
At Commissioner Deborah Franklin's request, David Thomas clarified there will be a
watering system for the oak trees as part of the project.
M/S/C (Busch/Johnston) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-077-00 with Riverside-Corona Resource
Conservation District (RCRCD) for compensatory mitigation for the State
Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the amount of
$703,300, plus a contingency amount of $70,000, for a total amount not
to exceed $773,300;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work pursuant
to the agreement terms up to the total amount; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. MONSTER LEAD WALL AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
David Thomas presented the scope of the agreement with Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 3
M/S/C (Hanna/Franklin) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-076-00 for the Monster Lead Wall
Agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) for
the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the
amount of $73,600, plus a contingency amount of $7,400, for a total
amount not to exceed $81,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work up to the
total amount not to exceed as required for the agreement; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. ON-CALL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES
Mark Lancaster, Acting Right of Way Manager, presented the scope of the agreements
for on-call property maintenance and repair services.
In response to Commissioner Kevin Jeffries strong concern regarding the number of
contracts the Commission is awarding outside of Riverside County and how the
Commission can increase the number of contracts awarded to businesses in Riverside
County, Anne Mayer stated the Commission does not have a local preference policy due
to federal law. The Commission participates in small business expos, utilizes
PlanetBids.com, as well as other resources to reach out to contractors in Riverside
County. She identified some of the obstacles small businesses experience in an effort to
bid on the Commission's requests for proposals. Staff will continue to look for
additional ways to encourage local businesses to work with the Commission and help
reduce obstacles where feasible.
M/S/C (Franklin/Rush) to:
1) Approve the following agreements to provide on-call property
maintenance and repair services for a three-year term plus two one-
year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed an
aggregate value of $1.S million;
a) Agreement No. 14-33-046-00 with Braughton Construction, Inc.;
b) Agreement No. 14-33-047-00 with Carry-All;
c) Agreement No. 14-33-048-00 with Joshua Grading and
Excavating, Inc.; and
d) Agreement No. 14-33-063-00 with Real Estate Consulting &
Services, Inc.
2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders
awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements;
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page4
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of
the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
No: Jeffries
10. PROPOSITION lB FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT
PROGRAM -CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION
FOR THE COMMISSION'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM
Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst, presented the details of the Proposition lB Fiscal Year
2012/13 California Transit Security Grant Program -California Transit Assistance Fund
and supporting resolution for the Commission's Commuter Rail Program.
M/S/C (Busch/Benoit) to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 14-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 12-13
Proposition 18-6561-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program-
California Transit Assistance Funds to the RCTC Commuter Rail Program
and Designation of Authorized Agent'';
2) Allocate the California Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit
Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) funds totaling $355,748 for the
Commission's Commuter Rail Program; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Jennifer Harmon stated this item is for the Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee to conduct an election of the officers for 2014.
At this time, Chair Kotyuk opened nominations for the Chair position.
Commissioner Berwin Hanna, seconded by Commissioner Rush, nominated
Commissioner Frank Johnston for the Chair position for 2014.
No other nominations were received. The Chair closed the nominations.
Chair Kotyuk opened nominations for the Vice Chair position for 2014.
Commissioner Johnston, seconded by Commissioner Marion Ashley, nominated
Commissioner Ben Benoit for the Vice Chair position.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page 5
No other nominations were received. The Chair closed the nominations.
Commissioners Frank Johnston and Ben Benoit were elected as the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee's Chair and Vice Chair for 2014, respectively.
12. COMMISSIONERS/ STAFF REPORT
12A. Commissioner Ashley briefed the Committee on the Perris Valley Line ground
breaking ceremony;
12B. Commissioner Karen Spiegel announced the Southern California Association of
Governments needs comments on the Draft 2014 Public Participation Plan by
March 7; and
12C. Commissioner Daryl Busch briefed the Committee on the Perris Valley Line
ground breaking ceremony and the inaugural run of positive train control in
Los Angeles.
13. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. The next
meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is
scheduled for March 24, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DA TE: March 24, 2014
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FRO M: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
THR OUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUB JECT: Conflict of Interest Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project
STA
This
1)
2)
FF RECOMMENDATION:
item is for the Committee to:
Approve the Conflict of Interest {COi) Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project
{1-15 Express Lanes); and
Forward to the Commission for final action.
BAC KGROUND INFORMATION:
In 2 006, the Commission assessed the feasibility of tolling four freeway corridors and concluded
portions of the State Route 91 and 1-15 corridors were generally feasible from a financial,
ffic operation, and engineering standpoint. Environmental studies began on 1-15 in 2008.
that
tra
At
10-
its 2010 workshop, the Commission adopted a reprioritization strategy for the
Year Western Riverside County Delivery Plan projects including staff's recommendation to
valuate the original 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project {1-15 CIP) scope. Staff worked with
1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee and returned with project scope recommendations. The
mmission approved a new 1-15 Express Lanes project to construct tolled express lanes in the
median from Cajalco Road in the city of Corona to just south of SR-60 near the San
nardino County line.
re-e
the
Co
1-15
Ber
In 2 013, staff worked with the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate project delivery methods.
anuary 2014, the ad hoc committee approved using design-build for the next phase of
ect delivery. In preparation for the design-build phase of work, staff is planning the
curement of both a project and construction management firm {2014/2015) and a design-
d team (2016/2017) to engineer and construct the project.
In J
proj
pro
buil
The
succ
Com
Commission adopted a similar COi policy in 2010 for the SR-91 CIP. This policy was
essfully utilized many times during the project's procurement phases. Staff proposes the
mission adopt a similar policy for the 1-15 Express Lanes.
Agen da Item 7
1
Purpose and Goals of Policy
The attached COi policy prescribes the Commission's policy on conflict of interest relating to
consultants, advisors, and individuals participating or desiring to participate in the
management, planning, procurement, design, construction, or development of the 1-15 Express
Lanes. The COi policy goals are as follows:
• Protect the integrity and fairness of the management, planning, procurement, design,
construction, or development of the 1-15 Express Lanes;
• Avoid circumstances where a consultant or proposer obtains, or appears to obtain, an
unfair competitive advantage as a result of work performed by a consultant;
• Provide guidance to consultants and proposers, or potential consultants and proposers,
so they may assess and make informed business decisions concerning their decision to
provide services on the 1-15 Express Lanes or to submit a qualification submittal and/or
proposal related to the management, design, construction, or development of the
project; and
• Protect the Commission's interests and confidential and sensitive project-specific
information.
The policy provides general conflict of interest standards, a process to determine whether a COi
exists and factors relevant to a COi determination.
Attachment: RCTC Conflict of Interest Policy for the 1-15 Express Lanes
Agenda Item 7
2
RCTC Conflicts of Interest Policy for
Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project
Section 1. Purpose. This Policy prescribes Conflict of Interest policies applicable to
private entities, including Consultants and Proposers, participating or desiring to
participate in the Commission's planning, procurement, design, construction or
development of the Project. A private entity's failure to comply with these standards of
conduct may result in potential liability to the Commission and the private entity and the
private entity's preclusion from participation in the Project. This Policy is intended to
apply in the context of the Commission's development of the Project pursuant to a
design-build delivery method and contract.
Section 2. Definitions.
Section 2.1. "Affiliate" means with respect to any Consultant: (a) any member, partner
or joint venturer of such Consultant; (b) any individual or entity that directly or indirectly
controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such Consultant or any of
its members, partners or joint venturers; and (c) any other entity for which 20% or more
of the equity interest in such other entity is held directly or indirectly, beneficially or of
record by (i) such Consultant, (ii) any of such Consultant's members, partners or joint
venturers or (iii) any Affiliate of such Consultant under clause (b) of this definition.
Section 2.2. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Section 2.3. "Conflict of Interest" means a circumstance arising out of a Consultant's
existing or past activities, including past activities as a Consultant to or employee of the
Commission, business interests, familial relationships, contractual relationships, and/or
organizational structure (i.e., Affiliates, etc.) wherein (i) the Consultant is or may be
unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Commission, (ii) the Consultant's
objectivity in performing the scope of work sought by the Commission is or might be
otherwise impaired, (iii) the Consultant has, or is perceived to have, an unfair
competitive advantage; (iv) the Consultant's performance of Services on behalf of the
Commission does or may provide an unfair competitive advantage to a third party; or (v)
regardless of whether accurate, there is a perception or appearance of impropriety or
unfair competitive advantage benefiting the Consultant or a third party as a result of the
Consultant's participation on the Project.
Section 2.4. "Consultant" means any person or business entity (including any individual
employee of such entity or any division and/or Affiliate of such entity) previously or
currently retained, or in the process of being retained, by the Commission to provide
Services in connection with the Project, including subconsultants and individual
employees of subconsultants.
Section 2.5. "Executive Director" means the executive director of the Commission or
his or her designee.
Section 2.6. "Policy" means this RCTC Conflicts of Interest Policy for the Project.
3
Section 2.7. "Project" means the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project.
Section 2.8. "Proposer" means any person or business entity, including joint ventures,
partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, consortia, teams or other groups
or organizations of individuals or entities, or the individuals and entities that make up
such groups, that have submitted a qualification submittal or proposal for work on the
Project or are interested in submitting a qualification submittal or proposal for work on
the Project.
Section 2.9. "Services" means, in the context of this Policy, consulting services related
to the Project, which may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following:
planning services, procurement services, federal and state environmental services;
financial advisory services; insurance services, legal services; DBE compliance or
program development services, labor compliance services, traffic and revenue studies;
operations and toll planning services; program oversight; design and construction
management services, preliminary engineering services (including right-of-way,
structures, survey and utility), and public and community outreach services.
Section 3. Conflicts of Interest.
Section 3.1. Purpose. This section prescribes the Commission's policy on Conflicts of
Interest relating to Consultants participating or desiring to participate in the planning,
procurement, design, construction or development of the Project, and thereby:
(A) protects the integrity and fairness of the planning, procurement, design,
construction or development of the Project;
(B) avoids circumstances where a Consultant or Proposer obtains, or appears to
obtain, an unfair competitive advantage as a result of work performed by a Consultant;
(C) provides guidance to Consultants and Proposers, or potential Consultants and
Proposers, so they may assess, and make informed business decisions concerning
their decision to provide Services on the Project or to submit a qualification submittal
and/or proposal related to the design, construction or development of the Project; and
(D) protects the Commission's interests and confidential and sensitive Project-specific
information.
Section 3.2. Applicability. This Policy applies to Consultants who desire to participate
in, have participated in or are participating in the performance of Services for the
Commission related to the Project. This Policy may prohibit or restrict the ability of a
Proposer to have a Consultant participate on a Proposer team as an equity owner or
team member, act as a consultant or subconsultant to a Proposer, or have a financial
interest in a Proposer or an equity owner or team member of a Proposer. This Policy
relates solely to the Project and does not address the Commission's approach to
conflicts of interest on other Commission projects.
Section 3.3. Conflicts of Interest Disclosure ·
Section 3.3.1. Obligation to Disclose. Consultants participating in the Project shall
arrange their affairs so as to prevent Conflicts of Interest from arising. Any
4
Consultant having an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest shall disclose the
matter to the Commission in writing with supporting facts and information to the
following individual:
Mr. Matt Wallace
Procurement and Asset Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street. 3rd Fioor
Riverside, CA 92502
Email: mwallace@rctc.org
Disclosures will also be requested as part of any request for qualifications or request for
proposals relating to the design, construction or development of the Project.
The Consultant's Conflict of Interest disclosure obligation is ongoing. Consultants
should undertake reasonable due diligence, including necessary conflict searches, to
determine whether new actual, potential or perceived Conflicts of Interest arise. Due
diligence should extend to investigation of past relationships and, if the Consultant is an
entity, to employees, officers or directors of the Consultant. If a Consultant becomes
aware of an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest at any time during its
participation in the Project, the Consultant shall promptly disclose the matter to the
Commission as described herein. A Consultant shall use its best efforts to respond to
any requests for additional information and documentation which the Commission
deems necessary to fully evaluate the Commission's Conflict of Interest issues and to
consider the Commission's determination. The Consultant's failure to provide such
information or documentation when requested may impact the Commission's final
determination hereunder.
Section 3.3.2. Failure to Comply. If a Consultant fails to comply with this Policy,
including failure to comply with any mitigative measures imposed under this Policy, or
otherwise fails to disclose an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, the
Commission may, in its sole discretion:
(A) Preclude and/or disqualify the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any
Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, from participation in the
planning, procurement, design, construction and/or development of the Project,
including any competitive process associated therewith;
(B) Require the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom
the Consultant is or had affiliated, to implement mitigative measures;
(C) Segregate or terminate the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any
Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, from planning, procurement,
design, construction and/or development of the Project; and/or
(D) Pursue any and all other rights and remedies available at law, in equity or set
forth in any request for qualifications or request for proposals, which rights and
remedies shall include the right to seek any and all direct or indirect costs and damages
resulting from the Consultant's failure to comply with this Policy, including, but not
limited to, costs resulting from third-party challenges to the procurement or the
5
Commission's re-procurement of the Project.
Section 3.4. Period in Which a Conflict of Interest Applies. If the Executive Director
determines that the performance of Services by a Consultant creates an actual,
potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, the provisions in this Policy and any decisions
made by the Commission related to such Conflict of Interest (including prohibitions,
mitigative measures, etc.) shall continue and apply for the duration of the planning,
procurement, design, construction and development of the Project, provided that the
Executive Director may, on a case-by-case basis and in his or her sole discretion,
modify the length of this time period in writing if he/she determines that the modification
is in the best interests of the Commission and the Project.
Section 3.5. Application to New Firm. If a Conflict of Interest applies to an individual,
the Conflict of Interest and prohibition with respect to the individual will not apply to the
individual's new place of employment, unless the new employer is an Affiliate of the
employee's previous employer or unless mitigative measures will not, in the
Commission's sole discretion, mitigate or eliminate the Conflict of Interest issue. If the
new employer is not an Affiliate of the previous
employer and is otherwise eligible to perform Services for the Commission pursuant to
this Policy and applicable law, the new employer will remain eligible despite the
employment of the individual, but mitigative measures may be required of the new
employer with respect to the employee.
Section 3.6. Federal and State Requirements.
Section 3.6.1. Federal and State Laws. For federal-aid projects and in certain other
circumstances, the Commission must comply with the Federal Highway Administration's
organizational conflict of interest regulations found in 23 CFR §636.116. The
Commission must also comply with certain California laws and regulations, including,
without limitation, Government Code §§1090 and 87100 et seq. Nothing in this Policy
is intended to limit, modify, supersede or otherwise alter the effect of those laws and
regulations, and the Commission will apply this Policy consistent with those laws and
regulations.
Section 3.6.2. Limitations on Commission Consents and Approvals. To the extent that
application of the federal and state laws and regulations described in Section 3.6.1
would preclude or limit participation by a Consultant or an individual with respect to the
Project, then notwithstanding any other aspect of this Policy or any contrary decision by
the Commission in response to an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest
under this Policy, such federal and state laws and regulations shall control and be
determinative. Under no circumstances shall a decision, approval or consent by the
Commission in response to a disclosure, request or actual, potential or perceived
Conflict of Interest under this Policy be considered an opinion with respect to the
applicability or effect of such federal and state laws or regulations, and Consultant shall
bear all responsibility and liability for determining if a conflict under federal and/or state
laws or regulations exist in relation to the Consultant's work or proposed work on the
Project.
Section 3.7. Binding Effect of Commission Decisions. The Commission shall not
6
withdraw or amend a prior consent or approval granted to a Consultant under this Policy
unless:
(A) The application of the federal and state laws and regulations described in Section
3.6 requires the consent or approval to be withdrawn or amended; or
(B) The Commission decides, in its sole discretion, to withdraw or amend the consent
or approval based on factual circumstances that the Commission has been made aware
of that were not disclosed when the Commission made its original decision, or factual
circumstances that are new or have changed since the Commission made its original
decision; or
(C) The Consultant or Proposer team fails to comply with any mitigative measures
imposed under this Policy.
Section 3.8. General Conflict of Interest Standards. Except as provided in Section 3.9
of this Policy, no Consultant that has previously provided Services or that is currently
providing Services to the Commission with respect to the Project may be a Proposer or
participate as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a
Proposer for the Project, or have a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with
respect to the Project. In Commission's sole discretion, this prohibition may be
extended to Consultants that worked for the Commission on a project other than the
Project, where such work was, in the Commission's sole determination, strategic to
Commission's design-build program or afforded such Consultant access to information
about the Project or the Commission's approach to the Project (or other design-build
projects) or procurement of the Project (or other design-build projects) that would
provide an unfair competitive advantage for such Consultant.
Section 3.9. Determination Regarding Provision of Services for the Project.
Section 3.9.1. Discretion of the Commission. Unless otherwise indicated in this Policy,
all approvals, actions or discretion under this Policy and with respect to an actual,
potential or perceived Conflict of Interest shall be within the sole discretion of the
Commission. Unless a particular decision regarding application of this Policy is referred
to the Commission's Board of Directors by the Executive Director, the Executive
Director retains the ultimate and sole discretion to act on behalf of the Commission
hereunder and to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an actual, potential or
perceived Conflict of Interest exists and what actions may be appropriate to avoid,
neutralize, or mitigate any actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest.
Section 3.9.2. Determination Process. In response to a disclosure under Section 3.3
above or information the Commission obtains independent of a Consultant, the
Executive Director shall determine whether a Consultant has an actual, potential or
perceived Conflict of Interest that the Executive Director determines should prevent the
Consultant from (i) being a Proposer, (ii) participating as an equity owner, team
member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, (iii) having a
financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project or (iv)
otherwise participating in the design, construction or development of the Project. Once
the Executive Director makes this determination, he/she or his/her designee shall send
the Consultant a written notice regarding the decision and, if participation is approved,
7
whether the approval and participation is limited or subject to the Consultant meeting
certain conditions. The Executive Director shall consider some or all of the following
factors when making the determination:
(A) Whether the Consultant will not, or in the case of the previous performance of
Services did not, have access to or obtain knowledge of confidential or sensitive
information, procedures, policies and processes that could provide, or could be
perceived to provide, an unfair competitive advantage with respect to the procurement,
design, construction or development of the Project;
(B) Whether the data and information provided to the Consultant in the performance of
the Services is either substantially irrelevant to the procurement for the Project or is
generally available on substantially an equal and timely basis to all Proposers;
(C) The type of Services at issue;
(D) The particular circumstances at issue, including the Consultant's ability to
effectively implement the safeguards described in Section 3.12, including an ethical
wall, or to otherwise mitigate the Conflict of Interest in a manner satisfactory to the
Commission;
(E) The specialized expertise, if any, needed by the Commission and Proposers to
implement the Project;
(F) The period of time between the previous work for the Commission and the
potential Conflict of Interest situation;
(G) Whether the Consultant's work for the Commission has been completed or is
ongoing;
(H) The potential impact on the procurement and implementation of the Project,
including impacts on competition;
(I) Whether, with respect to a Consultant's prior environmental services related to the
Project, if any, a record of decision or finding of no significant impact has been issued
for the Project;
(J) Whether, with respect to a Consultant's prior traffic and revenue Services related
to the Project, if any, the prior work will have no impact on the Project's plan of finance,
on a Proposer's ability to obtain and close funding or on the potential sources of funding
for the Project;
(K) Whether the Executive Director believes that the Consultant's participation is in
the best interests of the Commission; and
(L) Any other factors or circumstances deemed relevant by the Commission.
Section 3.10. Procurement and Financial Services. Independent of the process
described in Section 3.9, a Consultant actively engaged and performing procurement
services or financial services with respect to the Project may not be a Proposer or
participate as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a
Proposer for the Project, or have a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with
respect to the Project.
8
Section 3.11. Multiple Services. If a Consultant is providing more than one category or
type of Services to the Commission for the Project (e.g., environmental services as well
as procurement services) and there are differences in this Policy's considerations,
standards, restrictions, limitations and outcomes applicable to those categories or types
of Services, the standards, restrictions, limitations and outcomes applicable to a
category that are more stringent will be applied (e.g., if a Consultant were only providing
preliminary engineering services that have been completed, they may be approved to
participate on a Proposer team, whereas, if they were also providing ongoing
procurement services for the Project, they may not be approved to participate on a
Proposer team).
Section 3.12. Restriction of Services and Conditions to Approvals and Exceptions. In
order to address actual, potential or perceived Conflicts of Interest, the Executive
Director as part of providing his or her consent to the participation of a Consultant may,
in his or her sole discretion:
(A) Restrict the scope of Services the Consultant may be eligible to perform for the
Commission or the Proposer team in order to further the intent and goals of this Policy;
(B) Condition an approval, determination, or exception as the Executive Director
determines appropriate to further the intent and goals of this Policy, including by
requiring the Consultant or Proposer to implement certain safeguards, including, but not
limited to:
(i) The execution of confidentiality agreements satisfactory to the Commission,
which may, among other things, include the segregation and protection of information
obtained as a result of the Consultant's prior or ongoing work for the Commission or
from former or current Commission employees; and/or
(ii) The execution of ethical wall agreements satisfactory to the Commission, which
segregate certain personnel from participation in the Project; and/or
(iii) The execution of agreements satisfactory to the Commission regarding the
dissemination of work product and materials created as a result of Consultant's prior or
ongoing work for the Commission, including dissemination to the Commission and
restrictions on dissemination by the Consultant to any Proposer team, including a team
on which they intend to participate.
Section 3.13. Provisions are Nonexclusive. The provisions in this Policy do not address
every situation that may arise in the context of the Commission's planning, procurement,
design, construction or development of the Project nor require a particular decision or
determination by the Executive Director when faced with facts similar to those described
in this Policy. In addition, additional policies, procedures and limits related to conflicts of
interest or similar issues may be imposed by the Commission at any time with respect
to the Project or any other Commission projects.
9
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 24, 2014
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for the Completion of the
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Report I Environmental Impact Statement and
Project Report for the Mid County Parkway Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018,
with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to perform additional studies and design
support for the completion of the final Recirculated Environmental Impact
Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project Report
(PR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an additional amount of $2,243,505,
plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total additional amount of $2,467,855,
resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for
the project;
4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non-
funding related agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the project;
and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The MCP project is a proposed new west-east transportation corridor planned to improve
mobility in Western Riverside County. The original 32-mile project limits were from Interstate
15 to State Route 79. The original Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIR/DEIS) for the MCP project was circulated for a 90-day public review on
October 10, 2008. The Commission accepted public comments for the record at six public
meetings held in the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto and the communities of Mead
Valley and Citrus Hills High School in the First District along with comments via the website and
email.
Agenda Item 8
10
Comments submitted on the DEIR/DEIS raised environmental and community concerns
regarding the portion of the project between 1-15 and 1-215 and funding concerns about the
entire project. In response to these comments, the Commission took action on July 8, 2009, to
focus the project limits to the portion between 1-215 and SR-79, reducing the project in half to a
16-mile corridor.
Since the Commission directive in 2009, staff has been working with its consultant team and
project partners -Federal Highway Administration {FHWA), Caltrans, local agencies, and tribal
governments -to update and revise the technical studies for the modified project and
released a draft Revised DEIR/Supplemental DEIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) in February 2013 for public
review and comment. The development and release of the RDEIR/SDEIS was completed within
the budget from Amendment No. 5 approved by the Commission in September 2010.
Since the approval of Amendment No. 5, the MCP project team completed, or is in the process
of completing the following items:
• Reached agreement on a modified purpose and need.
• Developed three modified build alternatives (Alternative 4 Modified, Alternative 5
Modified, and Alternative 9 Modified) and one design variation at the San Jacinto River
Bridge area to be carried forward into the RDEIR/SDEIS.
• Updated all engineering, traffic, and environmental studies required for a RDEIR/SDEIS
and three modified build alternatives, including but not limited to a Supplemental New
Connection Report at 1-215, Traffic Technical Report, PR, environmental technical
studies and hydraulic studies for the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation (SJRB DV).
• Released the RDEIR/SDEIS evaluating the modified alternatives in January 2013 for a
75-day public review period.
o The RDEIR/SDEIS included discussions of the process to date and how the
comments received during public review of the original DEIR/DEIS led to a
decision to refine the project purpose and need statement and to focus the
project limits between 1-215 and SR-79. In addition to including the analysis of
up to three modified build alternatives and the SJRB DV, the recirculated
document included a phasing plan, associated environmental analysis, and
addressed public comments received on the DEIR/DEIS in 2008.
o Held public hearing on February 20, 2013.
• Following release of the RDEIR/SDEIS and public hearing, started work on all documents
required for a final REIR/SEIS and a Record of Decision (ROD).
o Prepared responses to comments on the RDEIR/SDEIS.
o Prepared the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan {MSHCP) Consistency
Determination of Biological Equivalency or Superior Preservation Analysis, and
submitted the joint project review (JPR) for the regional conservation agency and
the wildlife agency review and concurrence.
o Held 16 tribal consultation meetings and prepared a memorandum of agreement
{MOA) and discovery and monitoring plan (DMP) for tribal government and
Agenda Item 8
11
agency review for forwarding to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for
final approval.
o Revised and updated the design exception fact sheets and, geometric approval
drawings (GADs) for recommended Alternative 9 Modified to comply with
Caltrans 2012 standards for reduced project limits.
o Revised and updated all environmental technical studies for most recent
guidance and final approval, including but not limited to noise, jurisdictional
delineation, air quality, and relocation impact report.
o Recirculated portions of Chapter 4 of the RDEIR on air quality, greenhouse gases,
and climate change for public review on January 31, 2014. The public review
period ended on March 17, 2014. Comments are currently being evaluated.
o Received agreement in February 2014 from the transportation and resource
agencies that the Preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative for the project is Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV.
The remaining items required to complete and secure FHWA ROD are as follows:
• Preparation and approval of final Project Report;
• Complete the final REIR/SEIS;
• Complete the cost estimate review, project management plan and financial plan to
comply with FHWA's Major Project Guidance for projects over $500 million;
• Secure regulatory agency agreement on MSHCP Consistency Analysis, JPR concurrence,
Section 4(f) concurrence, and SHPO concurrence on the MOA and DMP;
• Circulate for public review the final REIR/SEIS; and
• Secure the FHWA ROD.
At the completion of this process between summer and winter of 2014, the Commission will be
requested to certify the final REIR, FHWA to release the final SEIS for public review, and FHWA
to issue a ROD. The critical path item in the schedule is securing SHPO concurrence; this action
is unpredictable in length and could add an additional 12 months of time to the schedule and
delay the issuance of the ROD to winter 2015. Following a ROD, the Commission can proceed
to right of way acquisition, design, and construction of the MCP project.
Contract Amendments
At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018 for a
total amount of $5,030,501 for Phase I work with Jacobs for the development of the project
study report/project development study (PSR/PDS) and preliminary phases of the PR and
environmental document (PR/ED) for what is now called the MCP. The original project limits
were from 1-15 to SR-79.
At its January 12, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 05-31-530,
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs for Phase II of the project and
development and completion of the preliminary engineering and environmental document, for
Agenda Item 8
12
a total amount not to exceed $26,134,384. This brought the total project cost for Phase I and
Phase II of the MCP project to $31,164,885.
At its November 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 06-72-555,
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs in the amount of $4,845,385 for
incorporation of three new alternatives identified during a value analysis study process for the
MCP project. Both schedule and budget were impacted due to the need to conduct the
required environmental and engineering studies for the new alternatives. Amendment Nos. 3
and 4, which covered work for the initial work on project re-evaluation, were funded with
contingency funds. This brought the total contract value for the MCP project to $36,010,270.
At its September 8, 2010 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018-05,
Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform additional work scope
for the reduced project between 1-215 and SR-79. This amendment covered completion of the
RDEIS/SDEIR and supplemental PR for the MCP project in the amount of $7,033,592.
Amendment No. 6 was a no cost amendment to extend the term for an additional 48 months to
complete additional technical reports and coordination with regulatory agencies and tribal
governments. Through Amendment No. 6, the total authorized amount for the MCP project
environmental and engineering studies is $43,043,862.
CONCLUSION:
Since the last Commission action in 2010 adding funding and scope to the contract, additional
state and federal requirements have arisen as well as additional requirements from regulatory
resource agencies and tribal governments. These requirements include the following:
• FHWA: Cost Estimate Review, Project Management Plan, and Financial Plan;
• State: New design requirements from 2012 Highway Design Manual change, Life Cycle
Cost Analysis, Air Quality Analysis for Green House Gases and Climate Change, Noise
Abatement Decision Report, and Soundwall Property Survey;
• Tribal Government: Concurrence with the MOA and DMP, which also resulted in the
need to prepare a Landscape Cultural Study;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional flood plain and hydrology analysis; and
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Modifications to the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan.
Amendment No. 7 will provide funding to complete the final REIR/SEIS and final PR and obtain
the ROD for the MCP project. Staff has negotiated with the consultant team a proposed
Amendment No. 7 related to the scope, schedule and cost for the final REIR/SEIS and PR for the
MCP project. During the negotiating process, it was agreed that some of the austerity
measures undertaken by Jacobs in 2010, such as reduction in fee from 10 percent to 7 percent,
and a 6 percent in reduction of overhead rate, will be maintained with this Amendment No. 7
resulting in approximate savings of $120,000.
Agenda Item 8
13
r-----------------------------------------
Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement
No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform the additional work scope to complete the final
environmental and engineering services associated with preparing a final REIR/SEIS and final PR
for the MCP project for an additional amount of $2,243,505 plus a contingency amount of
$224,350, for a total requested authorization of $2,467,855. The total authorized funding by
the Commission for the environmental and engineering work related to the MCP project, with
the addition of this request, will be $45,511,717, as summarized in the table below.
Commission Authorization Contract Execution
Date Amount Date Amount Description
Original 12/13/2003 $ 5,030,501 2/3/2004 $ 5,030,501
Phase I work for preparation of PSR/PDS
and preliminary phases of PR/ED
Amendment No. 1 1/12/2005 26,134,384 5/6/2005 20,168,608 Phase II work for preparation of PR/ED
Amendment No. 2 11/9/2005 4,845,385 1/11/2006
Phase II additional work related to three
4,845,385 new alternative alignments
Amendment No. 3 N/A N/A 11/14/2007 3,563,117
Phase II additional work for GADs and
cultural investigation
Amendment No. 4 N/A N/A 1/1/2010 2,402,659
Phase II additional work for rescoping of
project for re-evaluation
Amendment No. 5 9/8/2010 7,033,592 11/16/2010 7,033,592 Phase II additional work for RDEIR/SDEIS
Amendment No. 6 N/A N/A 12/31/2012 -Term extension through December 31, 2016
Total 43,043,862 43,043,862
Amendment No. 7
(proposed) 4/9/2014 2,467,855 2,243,505 Phase II additional work for Final REIR/SEIS
$ 45,511, 717 $45,287,367
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A
Source of Funds: CETAPTUMF
GL/Project Accounting No.:
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Attachments:
Financial Information
Year: FY 2013/14
FY 2014/15
002302 81101210 73 81101
1) MCP Scope of Work Amendment 7
2) MCP Project Schedule
3) MCP Project Cost Detail Amendment 7
4) MCP Project Cost Summary Amendment 7
5) Draft Agreement No. 04-31-018-07
Agenda Item 8
14
Amount: $ 400,000
$ 2,067,855
Budget Adjustment:
No
N/A
Date: 03/19/2014
-----------------------------~
ATTACHMENT 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 1 -PROJECT MANAGEMENT
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND BASIC ENGINEERING
AMENDMENT 7
The following scope revisions are included in this document:
• Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase
that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text.
These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but
are noted for documentation purposes.
• Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an
FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in
underline text.
1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1 Project Management
This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT)
leadership, progress monitoring, and maintenance of project files for the following:
• Amendment 4 (2009) -Scope and start re-evaluation phase for the modified
project, 16 miles from Perris to San Jacinto. (Noted with an "A")
• Amendment 5 (2010) -Scope for all studies and documents required to
release a Revised Draft Project Report and Recirculated/Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(SDEIS/RDEIR). (Noted with an "A")
• Items added to the scope that were not in Amendment 5 scope of work, but
were required to be performed in order to reach circulation of the
RDEIRISDEIS and completion of the re-evaluation phase. This work was
done with the contingency fund in Amendment 5 and re-a/location of original
Amendment 5 budget. No funds were requested for this work. It is noted in
this scope of work for documentation purposes only. These tasks are noted
with italics.
• Items added to scope of work under Amendment 7 for the Final Phase to
complete the final EIR/EIS and ROD. These tasks are noted with underline
text.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) will supervise, coordinate, monitor, and
review the Draft Project Report, Draft and Final Revised Project Report, Draft
15
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR)
Recirculated/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (SDEIS/RDEIR), Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) and all associated documents for conformance with the
latest Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and local agency standards, policies, and procedures.
Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project.
This task also incorporates the management and project integration required for
each of the subconsultants.
The consultant will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the
project re-evaluation. The job-specific QA/QC plan includes the type and timing of
checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures.
These procedures apply to all team members and will be regularly audited by our
designated QA/QC manager to ensure compliance. All documents and papers for
external use will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. A technical editor
will be used for all external documents.
1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls
Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate
project milestones in the critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded
for the team. The schedule will be updated bimonthly or more frequently as
required, and a variance analysis will be provided in our monthly report. Primavera
Scheduling Software, tied into the Jacobs Accounting System, will be used for this
task.
Jacobs will provide the Project Controls for this project to ensure proper financial
controls to the project. Earned value will be used along with schedule updates to
maintain project budget and schedule.
1.3 Project Meetings
The Jacobs Team will organize and attend a number of meetings as specified below:
Project Development Team (PDT)
The PDT and Jacobs will meet monthly. These progress meetings will be used to
coordinate the work effort and resolve problems and will be conducted by the
Consultant. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others, including Caltrans,
Riverside County, and the affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Perris,
Riverside and San Jacinto) as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials
2
16
and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an
action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence
copies to all project team members as appropriate. The meetings will also review
the following:
1. Activities completed since the last meeting
2. Problems encountered
3. Anticipated strategic problems and possible solutions
4. Information or items required from other cities or the agencies
5. Schedule "look-ahead" discussion
Small Working Group (SWG) Meetings
Small Working Group meetings will continued to be scheduled quarterly for the SWG
and monthly as needed, including representatives of local government and private
sector agencies along the corridor, along with the FHWA, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Riverside County, and RCTC. This
group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to
move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will
prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre-meeting with RCTC to
prepare for the monthly meeting.
Resource Agency Coordination {RAC) Meetings
RAC meetings will continued to be scheduled monthly as needed, including
representatives of the following agencies: FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and
RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical
input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence
on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The
consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre-meeting
with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting.
Trend Meetings
The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the monthly "Trend" meetings to discuss
current issues and strategize for and anticipate potential project problems in the
future. Jacobs will invite subconsultants based on the topic of discussion.
3
17
Budget and Schedule Meetings
The Jacobs Team will meet monthly with RCTC to review schedule, scope and
budget. The team will report on the estimate to complete or earned value of the
project. The team will identify any potential out of scope items and areas where
budget has been saved and can be utilized elsewhere.
Development Coordination Meetings
The Jacobs Team will attend development coordination meetings with local agency
partners and I or developers, to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, developer
tracts, etc., as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication
between the local agencies, developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to
the alignment and proposed developments.
Caltrans Technical Coordination Meetings
The Jacobs Team will attend monthly Caltrans workshop meetings to review and
resolve engineering issues, share information, seek input, provide interim reviews of
data, etc.
Internal Team Meetings
The Jacobs Team will run and attend semi-monthly internal team meetings to
develop, discuss, review, and implement task assignments and coordinate tasks.
Other Agency Meetings
Other agency meetings include anticipated meetings with federal, State, and local
agencies. These include coordination and support for the environmental streamlining
process, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) integration process, Special Area
Management Plan (SAMP) development, and coordination with the SR-79
realignment projects. These agency meetings are anticipated as an average of one
per month.
4
18
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 2-PUBLIC OUTREACH
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND BASIC ENGINEERING
AMENDMENT 7
The following scope revisions are included in this document:
• Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase
that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text.
These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but
are noted for documentation purposes.
• Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an
FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in
underline text.
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND BASIC ENGINEERING
2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH
2.1A Support for Public Meetings
Attend outreach team meetings to prepare for public information and hearing
associated with release of RDEIR/SDEIS; attend two trend meetings before each
round of public meetings and hearing. Provide and/or review Draft support materials
in the form of maps, newsletters, mail pieces, web site updates, newspaper ads,
PowerPoints, and presentation materials for public meetings, hearing and any
additional meetings with stakeholders.
Assumption: Attend 10 meetings and review/produce support materials as needed.
Scope includes associated team meetings to support this effort.
Product:
o Draft support documents for Public Meetings, hearing and any additional
meetings with stakeholders
o Timeline for deliverables leading up to Public Meetings
19
2.3A Message Development and Media Relations
Update key message document to reflect new project issues (environmental
documents, project design, final route selection). The key message document is
utilized for attending stakeholder meetings and in response or discussions to media
inquiries. Message development includes preparing RCTC spokesperson on key
message for briefings with local and regional transportation reporters prior to public
meetings, release of Draft REIS/SEIR and other project milestones. Develop an
MCP message document as needed for discussions with local, regional and federal
partners and stakeholders.
Assumption: Includes items in original Task 2.3A to support a public information
meetings and a newsletter.
2.6A Public Informational Meetings and Website (3 Total)
This task includes final documents for Public Information Meetings associated with
modified project and release of RDEIR/SDEIS and includes maintenance and
update to website.
Assumptions: One public information meeting for project modification in late 201 O or
early 2011 and two meetings for RDEIR/SDEIS -prior to public hearings for
RDEIR/SDEIS. This task assumes one newsletter, including mailing.
2.6.1A Support
Review and provide comments on final display materials, newsletters, and
PowerPoint presentations. Attend public informational meetings. Includes 4
renderings for modified project-revised cad files, new boards, pdfs but no new flights
or photos.
2.6.2A Communications
Final presentation materials for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings.
2.6.3A Logistical and Public Information Support
Meeting setup including researching venue locations and booking.
2.6.4A Hold Meetings
Meeting attendance.
2.6.5A Web site
2
20
Update of website for new materials related to public meetings, hearings and release
of RDEIR/SDEIS. Load of all environmental documents for RDEIR/SDEIS to
website. Review and assist with update of website for public meeting.
Update of website for new materials related to the Recirculation of portions of
Chapter 4 of the RDEIR/DEIS. Load all environmental documents for the
Recirculated Chapter 4 and produce products listed below.
One additional update of website and materials listed below for update to public prior
to the Final EIR/EIS.
Products for all 2.6A tasks:
• Talking points document
• Q&A document products
• Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint
presentations
• Letter and envelope
• Newsletter
• Email announcement
• List updates
• Newspaper ads
2.7A Recirculated DEIR I Supplemental DEIS Hearings, Final EIR/EIS Hearing
Assumption: One public hearing for RDEIR/SDEIS and one for the Final EIR/EIS
2.7.1A Support
Review and provide comments to display materials, newsletters, and draft
PowerPoint presentations. Attend hearings.
2.7.2A Communications
Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft Q&A document
to help RCTC spokesperson prepare for public questions during meeting.
2.7.3A Logistical and Public Information Support
Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to 2 informational
meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation,
and advertising; place advertising.
3
21
2. 7 .4A Hold Meeting
Attend meeting
Products for all 2. 7 A tasks:
• Presentation materials
• Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint
presentations
• Attend hearings
• Web site update
• Letter and envelope
• Newsletter
• Email announcement
• List updates (1) for the first round
• Newspaperads
4
22
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 3 -
SURVEY, RIGHT-OF-ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW)
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND BASIC ENGINEERING
AMENDMENT 7
3.0 SURVEY, RIGHT-OF-ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW)
3.3.A ROW Studies
Additional Work due to modified project includes work for ongoing requests from
RCTC to include periodic studies for right of way estimates and other studies
regarding acquisition cost and relocation impacts needed. In addition, to inspect
alignments, and make note of special problems or unusual circumstances, identify
and verify sensitive issues.
Additional work due to investigation of the San Jacinto River Bridge Design
Variation, response to comments and request for information at Placentia Ave future
interchange.
Additional work due to investigation of mitigation parcels, public requests. and
updated Right of Way Data for information at Placentia Ave future interchange and 1-
215 Modifications.
Products: Maps, data and information in format as requested by RCTC
3.4A Prepare Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report
Additional Work due to modified project includes preparation of Recirculated Draft
Relocation Impact Report, as supporting documentation to the RDEIR/SDEIS. The
report will be prepared using same methodology and data assumptions as the
previously prepared Draft Relocation Report.
Product: Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report for three alternatives,
Alternatives 4, 5, 9 from 1-215 to SR-79 (10 copies of each report).
3.4 Prepare Final Relocation Impact Report
The Consultant will prepare update the information from the Draft Relocation Impact
Report for the Final Relocation Impact Report.
23
Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services. this includes one Final
Relocation Impact Report. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require
interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services.
Product: Final Relocation Impact Report for each alternative (1 O copies of report).
3.5A Prepare ROW Data Sheets
Additional Work Due to Recirculated EIR/EIS will require updated ROW Data Sheets
for Alts 4, 5 & 9. An estimated 1,250 parcels are impacted.
Due to Project Modification leading to a Recirculated Draft EIR/ Supplemental Draft
EIS in order to perform ROW Data Sheets, parcel-level GIS data will be created to
visualize and track parcel geometry and estimate the percentage of the anticipated
take area. Provide GIS mapping services for the anticipated 1,250 parcels
impacted.
Due to Recirculated EIR/EIS will require updated ROW Data Sheets for Alts 4, 5 & 9.
An estimated 1,250 parcels are impacted.
Final ROW Data Sheets
Work to update the parcels related to the selected alternative only. The year and
trend will be assessed and an escalation applied across all the parcels as agreed to
in discussions with Caltrans in February 2014. Work to provide information for the
FHWA requirement for a Cost Estimate Review for selected alternative.
Utility Coordination -Ongoing
Additional Work due to modified project includes preparation of Utility Cost
Estimates. Prepare preliminary utility engineering documents as part of the
environmental clearance document in the planning stage. Determination of prior
rights will be coordinated with Jacobs. Obtain and analyze data to allocate cost
between the utility owner and local agency for all required utility adjustment work
and to clearly document, support and set forth the basis of this finding in a Report of
Investigation. The Team will prepare a Utility Matrix identifying utility owners,
descriptions of facilities, dispositions (i.e. protect, relocate, abandon), utility
relocation designer and utility contractor, and initial cost liability determinations.
Preparation of utility relocation estimate will also include railroad construction costs.
2
24
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 4 -ENVIRONMENT AL
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND BASIC ENGINEERING
AMENDMENT 7
The following scope revisions are included in this document:
• Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase
that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text.
These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but
are noted for documentation purposes.
• Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an
FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in
underline text.
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND BASIC ENGINEERING
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
4.0A ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
The scope for Task 4.0A assumes the limits on 1-215 stay within the current survey
limits, Harley Knox Blvd (Oleander Street) on the north to north of Nuevo Road to
the south. Tasks with an A were updated with additional scope to complete an
RDEIR/SDEIS for the 16 mile project, re-evaluation phase, in Amendments 4 and 5.
Portions of the modified alternative alignments were refined to address design
changes requested by Ca/trans and/or affected cities (e.g. avoidance of Paragon
Park in the City of Perris) in response to comments on the Draft EIRIEIS and review
of the GADs for Alternative 9. While these changes were made with every attempt to
stay within the existing survey limits, 20 locations extended outside the previous
survey limits and additional surveys to support the environmental technical studies
were required.
As a follow up item from the preliminary San Jacinto River Bridge analysis
conducted by Jacobs and the MCP team in summer of 2011, alternative 4 from the
preliminary analysis of the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation was
incorporated into the MCP technical studies and Recirculated Draft
EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS. Some technical studies required either a more detailed
analysis of the design variation (e.g. Natural Environment Study and additional
model runs for the Noise Study Report) while others only required updates to the
25
project description and impact tables (e.g. Community Impact Assessment and
Water Quality Assessment). Additional analysis was done by Dudek for discussion
purposes with agencies in order to compare the base case bridge with the proposed
design variation bridge. This included presentation materials, handout and two
presentations to agencies.
Task 4.4A Technical Studies to support RDEIR/SDEIS
In this task, the technical studies and documents prepared in original Task 4.2 will
be revised or supplemented in response to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA's decision to
modify the MCP project. Revised or supplemented technical studies will be prepared
that will accompany the submittal of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft
EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) for approval to circulate. Each revised or supplemented
technical study will include a description of up to three modified Build Alternatives,
as well as a description of the process leading to development of the modified Build
Alternatives. The ability to secure Caltrans and FHWA approval of technical studies
on these submittals is predicated upon:
1) The draft reports being revised and/or supplemented and submitted as
complete reports with no contingencies or placeholders based upon
information pending from the Traffic, Engineering, or Right-of-Way tasks,
2) A review process involving the Consultant, RCTC, and Caltrans to meet to
discuss prior to drafting the revisions or supplemental reports to agree upon
process and no changes in process being made by Caltrans or FHWA once
the type of document is agreed to at these meetings,
3) Two concurrent reviews by RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA (draft and final),
4) Supplemented reports will include a CD of the previously approved report
with the submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA, and
5) No changes in the survey area.
4.4.1A Biological Resources (NES/JD)
The Environmental Team will prepare a technical supplement to the approved
Natural Environment Study (NES; July 2008) and will include:
• A summary of the results for each modified alternative of the delineation of
waters subject to jurisdiction of the Corps, California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The
approved jurisdictional delineation will not need to be updated.
An assessment of impacts of each modified alternative to biological resources,
including sensitive plants, small mammals, burrowing owl, riparian birds, fairy
2
26
shrimp, jurisdictional waters, sensitive habitats, wildlife crossings/habitat
fragmentation, MSHCP Criteria Area and an updated table that summarizes
occurrence potential of regional species of concern.
• An update of the avoidance and minimization efforts.
• Recommendations for mitigation (such measures will be included upon
completion of coordination with the project team, including Caltrans
representatives; these mitigation measures will not include construction-level
documents such as specific restoration plans)
The technical supplement to the NES will identify the need for any additional
biological surveys (i.e., focused surveys that may need to be updated at the time of
construction).
The technical supplement to the NES will also identify regulatory permits that may
be required for project approval and construction (i.e. a Corps Section 404 permit,
CDFG 1602 Agreement, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Section 401 Certification. The processing of required permits is not included within
this scope of services.
Product: 11 hard copies each of draft and final technical supplement to the NES
22 CD copies of the approved NES and appendices (July 2008)
4.4.2A Cultural Resources Technical Reports
4.4.2.1 A Identification.
Agency Coordination. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans, FHWA, and the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) throughout the execution of this task. This
consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of
services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting,
researcher qualifications, documentation, etc., while adhering to the proposed
schedule.
Revised APE Map Development. These design drawings will be used to develop
the modified project Area of Potential Effect (APE) map for the undertaking. LSA
will coordinate with District 8 staff in the development of appropriate APE limits
for the modified project. All elements of this scope and budget are based on no
changes to the APE that would add new unsurveyed areas to the APE.
Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA recognizes that the
federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes and
that Caltrans/FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American
3
27
consultation. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans/FHWA to determine the level of
involvement LSA will have in the Native American consultation process to review
the modified project with the tribes. In consultation with District 8, LSA will
contact the seven tribal entities that have been involved with MCP to solicit their
concerns and input about the modified project. This initial contact will be made
through a verifiable letter system (e.g., Certified Letter). Subsequently, LSA will
contact those entities by up to two phone calls to ensure each group has an
opportunity to comment on the modified project. LSA will then coordinate up to
two meetings with such groups (as needed), documenting comments provided
during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate.
Consultation will continue throughout the Section 106 compliance effort.
Expanded Native American consultation activities have been required to support
the development of the Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), including
coordination/scheduling and attendance at 13 additional meetings with the
independent Section 106 facilitator (retained by FHWA and RCTC) and the
Tribes (one kickoff meeting with the facilitator. one pre-MOA group meeting with
the Tribes. nine individual meetings with the Tribes. and two follow up meetings
with the facilitator and partner agencies) plus preparation of draft and final
meeting summaries for all tribal meetings.
Based on the previous review/concurrence process for the Finding of Effect
document in late 2012, there is a potential for additional revisions to MOA and/or
Native American consultation based on SHPO review of MOA.
4.4.2.2A Documentation and Reports
Based on known resources within the modified study area, and with the basis that no
new areas will be added to the APE, no additional archaeological resources will be
identified for the modified alternatives considered.
LSA will develop a revised Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the
Caltrans/FHWA master document for the Section 106 effort. Attached to the H PSR
will be the revised Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the revised Extended
Phase I Survey Report (XPI Report), the revised Archaeological Evaluation Report
(AER), the revised Archaeological Evaluation Without Phase II Excavations Report
(AEPER) and the revised Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that
documents the results of the survey efforts for the modified project. The contents of
the report will be coordinated with Caltrans/FHWA.
HPSR. Upon completion of the revised engineering plans and consultation
with the Native American tribes described above, LSA will complete a revised
HPSR. The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for
consultation and decision-making, and serves as the supporting
documentation for NEPA and CEQA compliance. The HPSR documents
4
28
completion of the identification phase, completion of the National Register
eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and a Finding of No Historic
Properties Adversely Affected with Standard Conditions. The revised HPSR
will present a summary of findings, document public participation, describe
properties identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register
and under CEQA, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The
revised HPSR will include a modified location map, modified project vicinity
map, and modified APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and
other graphics. The revised HPSR will contain the following attachments as
appropriate: revised ASR, revised XPI Report, revised AER, revised AEPER,
revised HRER, and letters from any concerned or interested parties.
ASR. The revised ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for
prehistoric archaeological resources with the modified project APE. The ASR
will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of
the existing environment, ethnography, and prehistory of the study area, a
description of identified prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and
conclusions.
XPI Report. The revised XPI Report will document efforts of the XPI. The XPI
Report will contain documentation of the research and field methods; a brief
overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory; description of the
prehistoric archaeological resources; and findings and conclusions. The XPI
Report will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, and any
other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously
prepared resource records, and archaeological site records.
HRER. The revised HRER will document identification, recordation, and
evaluation efforts for the built environment and historical archaeological
resources within the modified project APE. The revised HRER will contain
documentation of the research and field methods, a historical overview, the
description and significance of identified historic archaeological and built
environment cultural resources (if applicable), and findings and conclusions
for the modified project. The HRER will also contain a bibliography,
preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms for properties not exempted
under Attachment 4 of the PA, and any other documents that may be
necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and
historical archaeological site records.
AER. LSA will develop a revised AER. The revised AER will provide the basis
for determining whether sites within the revised APE are eligible or ineligible
for the National Register. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be
impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The revised report will document the
5
29
fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National
Register eligibility of the sites.
AEPER. LSA will develop a revised AEPER. The revised AEPER will provide
the basis for determining whether sites within the revised APE are eligible or
ineligible for the National Register. Sites in the AEPER have not undergone
Phase II excavations. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted
by the MCP Alternatives. The revised report will document the data analysis
required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites.
Development of a Finding of Effect for the Eligible Resources. LSA will work
with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a revised Finding of Effect for the resources
found to be eligible for the National Register within the modified project. The
revised Finding of Effect will be prepared for only those properties listed in or
determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The specific format for
the revised Finding of Effect will follow the format used in the previous draft
FOE prepared for the project. These effects recommendations will be subject
to FHWA/ Caltrans and SHPO review and comment.
Following receipt of comments from Ca/trans and FHWA on the revised cultural
resource studies in mid-2011, additional work was required for the cultural resources
studies including the following: (1) additional coordination and consultation with the
Native American Tribes, (2) updates to the HPSR and Finding of Effect with respect
to the change to adverse effect for site 33-16598, (3) preparation of a Discovery and
Monitoring Plan (DMP), and (4) preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
In 2013. Caltrans and FHWA requested that the MOA/DMP include an annotated
outline of a new study; the Cultural Landscape Study. An initial draft outline was
submitted to FHWA and Caltrans for review and comment prior to submitting the
complete draft outline as part of the Draft MOA/DMP.
Products: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised HPSR, ASR, XPI Report,
HRER, AER, and FOE
5 Digital copies of the Draft, Revised Draft, and Final MOA and DMP.
4.4.3A Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation Report
LSA will prepare a revised Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation
Report (PIR/PER) that addresses the potential for paleontological resources within
the proposed right-of-way for each modified alternative and provides measures to
mitigate impacts to significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources that may be
encountered and impacted during construction excavation. A revised report will be
developed that conforms to Caltrans.
Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised PIR/PER
6
30
4.4.4A Noise Study Report
Noise Study Report. LSA will prepare a Noise Study Report (NSR). The NSR will
address the noise requirements of FHWA, Caltrans, Riverside County (County) and
any incorporated jurisdictions (cities) along the proposed project alignment of the
modified Build Alternatives. LSA will prepare a technical noise impact analysis
consistent with applicable procedures and requirements. Projected vehicular traffic
volumes on Mid County Parkway and adjacent affected street segments, if any, will
be used in preparing the technical noise impact analysis. Additional information
required is identified in the discussion below. The report will be prepared to respond
to the applicable NEPA evaluation criteria, and to meet Caltrans and FHWA
requirements.
LSA will review the applicable federal (FHWA) and State (Caltrans) criteria for the
project area. Noise abatement criteria (NAC) required by Caltrans and FHWA will be
identified and used in the analysis. Areas with potential future noise impacts will be
identified using land use information, aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance.
Discussion of existing and future approved sensitive uses within the Mid County
Parkway area will be included.
Due to the limited number of noise level measurements between SR-79 and 1-215
previously conducted by team, LSA will conduct short-term (15 minute) ambient
noise level measurements to establish the existing noise environment at
representative noise-sensitive land uses within the project area. Short-term (15-
minute) noise level measurements will be made at up to 55 locations. Concurrent
traffic counts will be conducted on a case by case basis depending on the existing
traffic within the vicinity of each location. In areas where the existing traffic noise
level is low or significant changes in traffic noise in areas where the modified Build
Alternatives are proposed, the traffic noise prediction model will not be calibrated.
Long-term 24 hour noise level measurements at up to 15 locations will be conducted
to identify the peak traffic noise hours. In addition, simultaneous interior/exterior
noise level measurements at up to 4 locations will be conducted at classroom
buildings located adjacent to the proposed project. Observations of other noise
sources, barriers, terrains, building heights, and other site specific information will be
noted during each measurement period.
Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed for each alternative based
on the available project-specific information, such as the equipment expected to be
used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or
diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended noise emission levels
will be used for the construction equipment. Blasting or pile-driving may be required
for project construction. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of
maximum levels (Lmax), and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq), and the
7
31
frequency of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations. Analysis requirements will
be based on the sensitivity of the area and the applicable noise control ordinance
specifications of the County and the affected cities.
Noise impacts from vehicular traffic will be assessed for modified Build Alternatives
are using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 required by Caltrans and
FHWA. Model input data needed include peak hour traffic levels; percentages of
autos and medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors;
and road widths. Peak-hour Continuous Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) along the Mid
County Parkway corridor and area roads that would be potentially affected will be
tabulated. Traffic parameters necessary for the model input will be obtained from the
traffic study prepared for this project or use worst-case traffic conditions.
Noise abatement measures designed to reduce short-and long-term impacts on
noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Mid County Parkway modified Build
Alternatives will be determined where necessary. An evaluation of the potential
mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided.
A preliminary feasibility and reasonable allowances will be provided for all noise
abatement measures identified, based on Ca/trans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol
for Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (Caltrans, August 2006).
Additional work was required for the Noise Study Report due to: 1) The need to
comply with new requirements from the new Ca/trans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol
released May 5, 2011, including a new requirement to plot receivers to represent
office and commercial land uses; (2) Longer than expected review periods by
Ca/trans of both measurement locations and TNM files, resulted in some field work
and TNM work having to be revised; (3) Comments from Ca/trans resulted in
additional work, including the request to add additional receptors up to 1,000 feet
from the roadway alignment and request for additional short-term monitoring around
peak hours (while LSA had the staff to fulfill this request, two additional sound
meters rental were required); (4) Additional work required to research and update
the model to include changes in the future developments.
Noise analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which
requires that an EIR comply with CEQA 's requirements to evaluate a project's effect
on existing conditions, not just a future year condition.
Noise Abatement Decision Report. LSA will prepare a Noise Abatement Decision
Report (NADR) for the modified Build Alternatives as defined in the Caltrans Noise
Analysis Protocol (August 2006). The report will summarize the preliminary
reasonableness determination from the Noise Study Report, present the engineer's
cost estimate for the evaluated abatement, evaluation of nonacoustical factors
related to feasibility, preliminary noise abatement decision, and secondary effects of
8
32
abatement (impacts on cultural resources, scenic views, hazardous materials, and
biology). The construction cost estimate for the evaluated abatement and the
evaluation of nonacoustical factors related to feasibility will be provided to LSA by
the engineer. LSA will prepare the NADR consistent with the Caltrans report
guidelines with the best information available.
Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised Noise Study Report
9 copies each of the Draft and Final Noise Abatement Decision Report
4.4.SA Air Quality Report
LSA will prepare a Revised Air Quality Analysis for the modified Build Alternatives in
accordance with the Caltrans Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Protocol, the EPA's fugitive dust conformity rule, and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook air quality guidelines. LSA will
conduct the screening analyses specified in the CO protocol and, if required,
conduct CALINE4 modeling for CO hot spots for up to 20 receptor locations for the
Existing, Future No Build, and the modified Build Alternatives. LSA will evaluate the
proposed project's impacts to long-term particulate matter concentrations (PM2.s and
PM10) and mobile source air toxics (MSAT) using the Transportation Conformity
Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas (EPA, March 2006) and the Interim Guidelines on Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, February 2006). In addition, the proposed
project's impact on global warming and climate change will be discussed. LSA will
also assist RCTC with the TCWG review process.
Air analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires
that an EIR comply with CEQA 's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on
existing conditions, not just a future year condition.
Product: 10 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Air Quality Analysis
4.4.6A Community Impact Assessment
A technical supplement to the approved Community Impact Assessment (CIA; June
2008) will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines found in the FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, October 30, 1987) and the Caltrans
Community Impact Assessment Handbook (June 1997).
Per FHWA 's request, the technical supplement to the CIA was revised to include
2010 Census Data that was made available to the public in the fall of 2011.
Impacts to the following socioeconomic topics will be evaluated in the technical
supplement for each of the modified alternatives under consideration: Land Use
9
33
Impacts and Growth Inducement, Farmland Impacts, Social Impacts, Relocation
Impacts, and Economic Impacts. Specific issues to be addressed within each topic
are discussed in further detail below. Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate potential socioeconomic impacts related to each topic shall be identified in
the technical supplement where feasible.
Land Use Impacts and Growth Related Effects. The technical supplement to the CIA
will evaluate each modified alternative for its compatibility with and impacts to the
existing and planned land uses within the refined study area. The discussion will
assess the consistency of each modified alternative with relevant local, regional, and
State regulations and plans related to land use and growth. This analysis will include
projections of housing stock within the refined study area and a description of
housing policies and programs related to each affected jurisdiction. This discussion
will include an analysis of each modified alternative's impact on the jobs and housing
balance based upon the interrelationship of commuting patterns with the location of
future housing and employment centers within the refined study area.
The technical supplement to the CIA will consider the ways that each modified
alternative could foster economic or population growth or the construction of
additional housing (either directly or indirectly) within the refined study area. Planned
growth relative to the highway infrastructure capacity throughout the study area will
be considered to determine the potential for growth-related effects of the proposed
action. This discussion will include a consistency analysis of the proposed modified
project with relevant regional/local land use plans and their incorporated population
and employment projections. The potential for growth-related effects will be
evaluated based upon the potential for exceeding roadway capacity, levels of
services, and increases (or decreases) in accessibility to vacant parcels,
underutilized land, and agricultural land. The discussion will also include an
evaluation and comparison of direct and indirect impacts of growth-related effects.
Farmland Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a revised
farmland impacts analysis, including an evaluation of impacts to all four types of
farmland, including: (1) prime, (2) unique, (3) farmland of statewide importance, and
(4) farmland of local importance. Early consultation will be initiated with the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to prepare Form CPA-106. A map will be
prepared identifying the location of all four types of farmlands within the refined
study area. Based upon the results of Form CPA-106, the technical supplement to
the CIA will: (1) discuss and summarize the impacts to farmlands from each modified
alternative under consideration, (2) identify the status and summarize the potential
impacts to Williamson Act contract lands, and (3) identify measures to avoid or
reduce impacts to farmlands.
Social Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a summary of any
additional public outreach efforts conducted for the modified MCP project, including
IO
34
public input received from meetings, newsletters, mailings, and additional community
outreach efforts.
The technical supplement to the CIA will discuss the following items for each
modified alternative under consideration:
• Evaluate potential neighborhood-level disruptions or community cohesion of the
various social groups as a result of the proposed action.
• Properties that may become restricted in access or landlocked.
• A description of transit facilities, highways, streets, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities within the study area and changes in travel patterns and accessibility
(e.g., vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian) as a result of the proposed
action.
• A description, location, and impact analysis of community services and facilities
within the refined study area, including schools, recreation areas, churches,
hospitals, police and fire protection facilities, etc.
• Availability of parking facilities and any lots or parking spaces that would be
affected by the proposed action.
Impacts to minority populations and low-income populations will be evaluated in
compliance with Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations. The effects of the modified project on
age-related, transit-dependent, minority and low-income populations will be analyzed
at the tract level to determine whether any social group is disproportionately
impacted. Potential mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts to
these populations will also be identified.
Relocation Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a summary of
displacements (residential and commercial), the availability of replacement housing,
and relocation assistance as identified in the Revised Relocation Impact Report (see
Task 3.4A). The technical supplement to the CIA will also include an evaluation of
potential impacts to the local housing stock and employment centers within the
refined study area based upon the proposed displacements.
Economic Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will discuss the following for
each modified alternative under consideration:
• Economic impacts on the regional and local economies, including the effects of
the proposed action on development, local property and sales tax revenues, City
expenditures, job opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales. Note, previous
economic data collected for the approved CIA will be used as a basis for this
analysis.
11
35
" I m p a c t s t o t h e e c o n o m i c v i t a l i t y o f e x i s t i n g a n d f u t u r e h i g h w a y - r e l a t e d
b u s i n e s s e s ( e . g . , g a s o l i n e s t a t i o n s , m o t e l s , e t c . ) a n d t h e r e s u l t a n t i m p a c t , i f a n y ,
o n t h e l o c a l e c o n o m y .
" I m p a c t s o f t h e p r o p o s e d a c t i o n o n e s t a b l i s h e d b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t s a n d a n y
o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o m i n i m i z e o r r e d u c e s u c h i m p a c t s b y t h e p u b l i c a n d / o r p r i v a t e
s e c t o r s .
P r o d u c t : 9 c o p i e s e a c h o f t h e d r a f t a n d f i n a l t e c h n i c a l s u p p l e m e n t t o t h e C I A
1 8 C D c o p i e s o f t h e a p p r o v e d C I A ( J u n e 2 0 0 8 )
4 . 4 . 7 A F l o o d p l a i n E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t
L S A w i l l p r e p a r e a r e v i s e d F l o o d p l a i n E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C a l t r a n s
g u i d e l i n e s ( E n v i r o n m e n t a l H a n d b o o k , V o l u m e I , C h a p t e r 1 7 ) b a s e d o n t h e r e v i s e d
L o c a t i o n H y d r a u l i c S t u d y t o b e p r e p a r e d b y t h e e n g i n e e r i n g t e a m . T h e r e p o r t w i l l
d i s c u s s p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t s a n d m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s r e l a t e d t o f l o o d p l a i n
e n c r o a c h m e n t , f l o o d - r e l a t e d h a z a r d s , n a t u r a l o r b e n e f i c i a l f l o o d p l a i n v a l u e s , a c c e s s
i n t e r r u p t i o n , a n d t h e c o m m u n i t y f l o o d p l a i n d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n .
P r o d u c t : 9 c o p i e s e a c h o f d r a f t a n d f i n a l R e v i s e d F l o o d p l a i n E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t
4 . 4 . B A H a z a r d o u s W a s t e I n i t i a l S i t e A s s e s s m e n t
L S A w i l l p r e p a r e a t e c h n i c a l s u p p l e m e n t t o t h e a p p r o v e d I S A ( O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 ) t o
p r e s e n t f i n d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r e a c h m o d i f i e d a l t e r n a t i v e b a s e d o n t h e
s i t e s u r v e y a n d h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d s r e v i e w c o n d u c t e d f o r t h e a p p r o v e d I S A .
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a y i n c l u d e s i t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f o r s i t e s t h a t a r e c o n s i d e r e d
c o n t a m i n a t e d s i t e s b y t h e a p p l i c a b l e o v e r s i g h t a g e n c y .
T h i s s c o p e o f s e r v i c e s d o e s n o t i n c l u d e :
" R e v i e w o f p r i v a t e r e c o r d s o r i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s
" S a m p l i n g f o r a s b e s t o s o r a e r i a l l y d e p o s i t e d l e a d , o r o t h e r s o i l s a m p l i n g
" C o n d u c t i n g P r e l i m i n a r y S i t e I n v e s t i g a t i o n s ( P S l s ) i n v o l v i n g s o i l o r g r o u n d w a t e r
s a m p l i n g
T h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a r e n o t r e c o m m e n d e d u n t i l t h e d e s i g n p h a s e f o r t h e s e l e c t e d
a l t e r n a t i v e d u e t o t h e p o t e n t i a l l y l a r g e n u m b e r o f p r o p e r t i e s r e q u i r i n g e v a l u a t i o n
( r e s u l t i n g i n s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t s t o R C T C ) a n d t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e
o f h a z a r d o u s w a s t e c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t i n f l u e n c e t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a P r e f e r r e d
A l t e r n a t i v e .
P r o d u c t : 9 h a r d c o p i e s e a c h o f t h e d r a f t a n d f i n a l t e c h n i c a l s u p p l e m e n t t o t h e I S A
1 8 C D c o p i e s o f t h e a p p r o v e d I S A ( O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 )
1 2
3 6
---------------------------------------------
4.4.9A Visual Impact Assessment
LSA will prepare a technical supplement to the approved VIA (March 2008) that
evaluates the visual impact of each modified alternative consistent with FHWA's
Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988).
This technical supplement shall identify potential visual impacts from project
construction. The visual project impacts will be discussed from a qualitative
perspective, but will be quantified using the scoring system in the approved VIA for
the MCP project. To assist in the assessment of potential visual impacts associated
with the modified alternatives proposed within the MCP study area, existing
viewsheds and visual resources characterized in the approved VIA will be used
again for this analysis (i.e. no additional visual simulations will be prepared).
Following RCTC's approval of Amendment 5, modifications to the design occurred
that required visual simulations to be revised to account for design changes (i.e.
connections to 1-215, avoidance of Paragon Park, Redlands Interchange, etc.).
Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce significant
visual impacts.
Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the VIA
18 CD copies of the approved VIA (March 2008)
4.4.1 OA Section 4(f) Evaluation
LSA will prepare a revised Section 4(f) Evaluation to address the effects of the three
modified Build Alternatives on the two known 4(f) properties within the revised study
limits. The revised Section 4(f) Evaluation will discuss avoidance alternatives and be
included as an appendix in the RDEIR/SDEIS. LSA will also assist RCTC in
coordination with the City of Perris regarding Paragon Park.
Based on the SHPO Letter dated September 18, 2012, RCTC and FHWA "assumed
eligibility for this undertaking" for four bedrock milling sites previously determined to
not be eligible for listing on the National Register. With this assumption of eligibility,
the four bedrock milling sites trigger protection under Section 4(f); therefore, an
expanded Section 4(f) Evaluation was required.
LSA will assist RCTC and FHWA in their consultation with CDFW to obtain their
concurrence on the Section 4(f) determination for the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.
Dudek will assist by attending meetings with CDFW as needed to discuss issues of
CDFW replacement lands as related to MSHCP issues.
Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Draft Section 4(f)
13
37
Evaluation
4.4.12A Water Quality Assessment
LSA will prepare a Revised Water Quality Assessment Report in accordance with
Caltrans guidelines that discusses watershed characteristics, groundwater
hydrology, regulatory requirements, pollutants of concern, and receiving waters
conditions, impairments, objectives, and beneficial uses. The report will also be
revised to address the new Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River
Basin (February 2008) and will discuss Design Pollution Prevention BMPs,
Construction Site BMPs, and Treatment BMPs that are applicable to the modified
project alternatives per Caltrans requirements. Each alternative's potential impact on
water quality will be evaluated and the mitigation measures necessary to prevent
adverse water quality impacts will be identified. For this study, LSA will use the
Revised Storm Water Data Report (SWOR) to be prepared by the engineering team
in Task 6.0.
Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Water Quality
Assessment Report
4.4.15A Section 404 (b)(1) Alternative Analysis
LSA will prepare a revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis to address the
effects of the three modified Build Alternatives. The revised Section 404(b)(1)
Alternatives Analysis will discuss avoidance alternatives and be included as an
appendix in the RDEIR/SDEIS.
Product: 1 O hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Section 404(b)(1)
Alternatives Analysis
4.5.1.1 A Prepare Administrative Draft Recirculated Draft EIR I Supplemental
Draft EIS
The results of the revised technical studies and supplements to the approved
technical studies will be presented in an Administrative Draft Recirculated Draft
EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS). LSA will prepare the Administrative
RDEIR/SDEIS, incorporating the findings of the revised technical documents for
submittal to RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans, and the Corps for review. Sections of the
RDEIR/SDEIS will also be revised to address substantive comments received during
public review of the original Draft EIR/EIS. The RDEIR/SDEIS will be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as well as the most current
document formats and guidance posted on Caltrans Standard Environmental
Reference Web site (as of May 1, 2009).
14
38
Both short-term construction and long-term operational effects of each modified
alternative will be considered, as well as any potential impacts from a proposed
phasing plan. The Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS will also address indirect and
cumulative effects of each of the modified alternatives, CEQA considerations of level
of significance of impacts including the new CEQA Guidelines approved [July 2009],
and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
The EIR/EIS will be organized in a manner intended to reduce the presentation of
duplicative information to the extent feasible for areas where the alternatives
overlap.
Assumption: 36 hard copies of Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS
36 CD sets of the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS
CD copies of approved technical reports
Product: Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS
4.6.1.1A Prepare Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for Approval to
Circulate
LSA will revise the RDEIR/SDEIS per comments received from RCTC, FHWA,
Caltrans and the Corps on the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS and will prepare an
electronic copy of the RDEIR/SDEIS for RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA final review
and one hard copy for approval and signature to circulate the document for public
review.
LSA will also revise the public distribution list as part of the RDEIR/SDEIS with input
from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will assist the Corps to revise the 404
Preliminary Public Notice and distribute simultaneously with the RDEIR/SDEIS. The
RDEIR/SDEIS will be circulated for public review once the list has been approved by
the RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare a draft Notice of Availability and
Public Hearing for publication by the public outreach team. LSA will prepare and file
a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA.
LSA set up GIS Stations at the SR-91 GIP Public Hearings in June 2011 that were
useful to help the public understand the project, especially for property owners
concerned about property acquisition. Based on the positive feedback from the
public, RCTC requested LSA to set up two GIS Stations at the MCP Public Hearings
for the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in February 2013.
Products: 36 hard copies of RDEIR/SDEIS
310 CD sets of the RDEIR/SDEIS
15
39
CD and hard copies of technical reports for RCTC, Caltrans, FHWA
and the libraries.
235 Notice of Availability
1 Notice of Completion
Revised 404 Preliminary Public Notice
Product: RDEIR/SDEIS, Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion, & Revised 404
Preliminary Public Notice
TASK 4.7 PREPARE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Draft Response to Comments document will be prepared for submittal to RCTC,
Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare responses for its areas of responsibility and
will coordinate with other consultant team members, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA to
prepare responses for their respective areas of responsibility. The comments will be
scanned into a *.pdf format to facilitate integration into the Draft Final EIS/EIR. The
responses will be prepared in a tabular format similar to that included in the
Winchester to Temecula Corridor Tier 1 Final EIS/EIR, and will include both general
responses to broad (often repeated) topics of concern as well as specific responses
to specific comments.
Budgeting for responses to comments is difficult to project, since the scope of public
and agency comments/concerns is not entirely known at this time. For preliminary
budgeting purposes, we estimate that a total of 1,000 letters will be received. Each
comment letter will be numbered and scanned. It is estimated that there will be a
total of 3,000 comments within these letters. Each individual comment will be
labeled on the letter and listed in the Response to Comments table. Each response
will be included in the table as well. It is also estimated that 100 of the 3,000
comments will require detailed responses as specific comments. We have
estimated the need for 1,280 professional staff hours and 280 support staff hours
(Graphics, Word Processing/Editing, and Clerical) to complete this task. These
specifications and any necessary adjustments to the Response to Comments budget
will be reviewed with RCTC prior to initiating this task.
Three additional review cycles of the Draft Response to Comments resulted in
higher than budgeted expenditures. This task was budgeted assuming one
concurrent review cycle per standard process on other deliverables. but a total of
three separate submittals was made to accommodate three separate review cycles
by RCTC staff. RCTC Legal Counsel. and a submittal to Caltrans and FHWA in
advance of the formal submittal for concurrent review by the MCP partner agencies
(Transportation and Resource Agencies). There is a potential for additional revisions
needed to the Response to Comments following review by the resource agencies.
16
40
At the direction of RCTC. "Reject MCP" emails (Center for Biological Diversity form
letters) received after April 19. 2013 (the close of the public comment period on the
Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS). are being included in the
Administrative Record (500-600 letters received per month).
On November 14. 2013. RCTC requested that a Second Recirculated Draft EIR be
prepared to provide updated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions analyses
and revised CEQA significance determinations. The work effort includes preparation
of a First and Second Administrative Draft for RCTC's review and approval to
circulate for public review; preparation of draft public notices; coordination of
document distribution to the State Clearinghouse. libraries and the EIR/EIS
distribution list; and. preparation of responses to comments on the Second
Recirculated Draft EIR.
Dudek will assist in responses related to the San Jacinto River Bridge crossing at
Lakeview. Dudek will compile a complete and comprehensive report including
graphics and maps as needed based on the modeling and information presented at
various RAC meetings.
Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Response to Comments.
Product: Three separate submittals of Draft Response to Comments.
4.8 DRAFT FINAL EIS/EIR
Following review of the Draft Responses to Comments, LSA will prepare a Draft
Final EIS/EIR, which will incorporate changes to the EIS/EIR sections consistent
with the responses to comments. The Draft Final EIS/El R will be prepared for
submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA.
After approval of Amendment 5 in 2009. the MCP partner agencies agreed to
process the project in accordance with the 2006 NEPA/404 Integration MOU. Unlike
the previous 1994 MOU under which the project was originally being processed, the
2006 MOU stipulates a series of specific information package submittals for each
step in the three checkpoints of the NEPA/404 integration process. To provide
supporting documentation to obtain agency concurrence on the Checkpoint 3
milestone (Preliminary LEDPA Determination). a comprehensive package was
prepared and underwent two cycles of revision prior receiving agency concurrence
on the Preliminary LEDPA.
Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Final EIS/EIR
Preliminary, Draft, and Final Checkpoint 3 Information Package (25
copies)
17
41
Product: Draft Final EIS/EIR
Checkpoint 3 Information Package
4.9 FINAL EIS/EIR
Based on comments received on the Draft Final EIS/EIR, LSA will prepare the Final
EIS/EIR, including a Notice of Determination (NOD) in accordance with CEQA
requirements, including an $850 California Department of Fish and Game-filing fee.
LSA will produce copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to commenting agencies
prior to certification of the Final EIS/EIR by RCTC. With assistance from LSA,
RCTC legal counsel (BB&K) will have primary responsibility for preparing Findings
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which will be adopted by RCTC as
part of the Commission's action to certify the Final EIR.
This task was originally budgeted assuming one concurrent review cycle per
standard process on other deliverables. The scope has been expanded to provide
an additional round of review of the Final EIR/EIS either due to FHWA requests or if
RCTC requests to have BB&K review prior to the document being sent out to the
Transportation and Resource Agencies.
Assumption: 150 copies of Final EIS/EIR
Product: Final EIS/EIR
4.10 PREPARE RECORD OF DECISION
LSA will prepare a Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans,
and FHWA for review. Based on comments received, a Final ROD will be prepared
for submittal to FHWA for review and approval. FHWA will publish the ROD in the
Federal Register.
The ROD will include responses to comments received on the Final EIS and/or the
USAGE Public Notice.
Although the approval of the ROD is the final completion milestone in the PA/ED
process. the scope for this task includes post-ROD activities such as compilation of
separate Administrative Records for CEQA and NEPA for use by RCTC and FHWA
Legal Counsel.
Assumption: 10 Copies of the Draft ROD
18
42
4.11 HCP AMENDMENTS, MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, AND
OTHER REPORTS REQUIRED FOR RESOURCE AGENCY APPROVAL
The consistency analysis with the Western Riverside County MSHCP (MSHCP) will
be undertaken at two levels. The first level of analysis will be for CEQA/NEPA
purposes and will analyze in general terms the relationship of the various
alternatives under consideration in the EIS/EIR to the goals, objectives and
biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs. The second level
of analysis will occur following identification of a Preferred Alternative and will
incorporate the detailed consistency analysis called for in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP.
Scopes of services for both levels of analysis are provided below.
Dudek will assist by attending meetings, providing supplemental information as
needed in order to obtain a completed Joint Project Review (JPR) from the Regional
Conservation Authority. Dudek will attend meetings and obtain supplemental
information as needed related to Wildlife Agency review of the JPR.
Jurisdictional Delineation: An updated Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) complying with
USACE's latest requirements was required in 2013 due to expiration of JD approved
by USAGE in April 2008 (USACE's approval letter indicated that the JD was valid for
a period of up to five years). Because of changes in USAGE requirements ("post-
Rapanos" guidance). a complete new report was required. not just updated forms. In
addition. USAGE requested that archival and field research be conducted to address
concerns raised by USFWS regarding potential agricultural wetlands in the vicinity of
the San Jacinto River Bridge in Lakeview.
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP): Additional details and information
are now required for an HMMP (e.g., identification of specific parcels for mitigation)
per updated USAGE guidelines than when this task was first budgeted in 2004.
Mitigation requirements (both requirements for plans and procedures for determining
adequacy of mitigation) have changed substantially since 2004. beginning with the
new Corps/EPA Mitigation Rule of April 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332). and
continuing with extensive efforts in the last couple of years for standardization.
especially in the South Pacific Division. Specific examples include:
• The Mitigation Rule itself. at §230.94. specifically requires the preparation of a
final HMMP as follows:
(c) Mitigation plan. (1) Preparation and Approval. (i) For individual permits. the
permittee must prepare a draft mitigation plan and submit it to the district engineer
for review. After addressing any comments provided by the district engineer, the
permittee must prepare a final mitigation plan. which must be approved by the
district engineer prior to issuing the individual permit. Prior to the Mitigation Rule. a
final HMMP could be a condition of an individual permit.
19
43
" O n O c t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , C o r p s H e a d q u a r t e r s i s s u e d a R e g u l a t o r y G u i d a n c e L e t t e r
( R G L N o . 0 8 - 0 3 ,
h t t p : / / w w w . u s a c e . a r m y . m i l / P o r t a l s / 2 / d o c s / c i v i l w o r k s / R G L S / r g l 0 8 0 3 . p d f ) t h a t
e m p h a s i z e d t h e n e e d f o r m o r e r i g o r o u s p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d s a n d m o n i t o r i n g
r e q u i r e m e n t s .
" W i t h i n t h e l a s t t w o y e a r s , t h e S o u t h P a c i f i c D i v i s i o n o f t h e C o r p s h a s i s s u e d a
n u m b e r o f n e w d o c u m e n t s / r e q u i r e m e n t s r e l e v a n t t o m i t i g a t i o n p l a n s . T h e s e c a n
b e f o u n d a t
h t t p : / / w w w . s p d . u s a c e . a r m y . m i l / M i s s i o n s / R e g u l a t o r v / P u b l i c N o t i c e s a n d R e f e r e n c e s
/ t a b i d / 1 0 3 9 0 / A r t i c l e / 7 5 5 4 / 1 2 5 0 1 - s p d . a s p x .
S p e c i f i c d o c u m e n t s i n c l u d e "