Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-04-13 City Council Agenda Item No. 6
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2010 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITY AND BILLING FOR 1-15 / RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE - SC ENGINEERING Background In 2000, City staff began the process of developing an interchange system at 1-15 and Railroad Canyon Road to mitigate the congestion at that location. Being a freeway project, the city was required to process the development of the interchange design through Caltrans. There are basic steps to the Caltrans project development process: in order, these reports are: Project Study Report (PSR), Project Report (PR), Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA & ED) and Plans, Specifications and Estimate (P, S &E). Details of these steps are as follows: PSR - This step analyzes the proposed project and develops multiple design alternatives. PR- This step evaluates the design alternatives developed in the PSR phase and, through traffic and other studies, narrows the selection to a preferred design alternative. PA & ED - This phase refines the feasibility of the preferred design alternative through the use of additional studies. In this phase all exceptions to Caltrans' design standards are analyzed. The environmental impacts are also analyzed in this phase. P,S & E - This is the design phase of the process where construction drawings are completed and the bid documents (specifications, bid item list and final cost estimates) are assembled. AGENDA ITEM NO.6 Page 1 of 83 SC Engineering Activity and Cost April 13, 2010 Page 2 On March 9, 2010, at the regularly scheduled City Council agenda review meeting, staff was directed to provide a report detailing the costs and activities of SC Engineering on the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange project. Discussion SC Engineering has been involved with the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange project since April of 2000 when the company was awarded the PSR Study phase. There have been three (3) purchase orders processed on behalf of SC Engineering as detailed below: 1) PSR Phase with a cost of $149,140 The Project Study Report began in April, 2000 and was completed and approved by Caltrans in September, 2003 2) Design of the Interim Interchange Improvements with a cost of $85,870 The interim project design began in January, 2004 and the construction was completed in September, 2005 3) PR and PA & ED phases with a cost of $1,299,256. The Project Report began in February of 2005 and is currently under Caltrans review. This purchase order was amended to add the PA & ED phase which is currently in process. The environmental studies have been completed and draft reports are being analyzed by Caltrans. The preliminary environmental analysis of the project revealed no significant impacts. To date, the purchase order for the PR and PA & ED phases has been charged $813,565. The purchase order breakdown is as follows: P.O. # Amount Paid to SC Encl. P.O.# 01-0238 $114,500 P.O.# 01-0238 Increase 36,714 $151,214 $149,141 P.O.# 04-0142 P.O.# 06-0128 P.O.# 06-0128 Increase $91,000 $80,740 $299,274 $277,549 $1.000.000 $225,998 $1,299,274 $733,428 Paid to SC P.O. Subs Balance $ 0 $2,074 $5,130 $5,130 $21,707 $ 18 $288,311 $455,692 $315,148 The total amount of the purchase orders processed for SC Engineering on this project is $1,541,488. Page 2 of 83 SC Engineering Activity and Cost April 13, 2010 Page 3 Total amount to date paid to SC Engineering = $733,428 Total amount to date paid to SC Engineering Sub-consultants = $315,148 Recommendation: Receive and file. Prepared by: Ken Seumalo Director of Public Works Approved by: Robert A. Bradya City Manager IW Attachments: Vicinity Map Project Purchase Order Summary Spread Sheet Purchase Orders Brief Project History 2000 - 2008 PDT Agendas 2008 - Present Page 3 of 83 VICINITY MAP INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD CITY COUNCIL APRIL 13TH, 2010 Page 4 of 83 SC ENGINEERING - Railroad Canyon / 1-15 Interchange Project PO# 01-0238 Date 5/4/2000 PO#06-0128 Date 9/20/2005 $299,274 Interchange Project Study Report $114,500 Authorized Additional Work - Prelim $36,714.25 Check Date Pd. to Subs Amt. to SC Check Total 8/9/2000 $34,977.06 10/26/2000 $13,355.34 11/28/2000 $5,568.03 1/24/2001 $3,694.95 3/13/2001 $3,521.24 5/8/2001 $28,168.04 8/28/2001 $7,316.37 3/11/2002 $13,125.00 5/29/2002 $25,280.80 6/27/2002 $5,668.89 1/28/2003 $5,234.85 3/24/2003 $1,597.40 6/27/2003 $1,069.43 1/28/2004 $563.50 $149,140.90 Interchange Proj. Report and GAD Check Date Pd. to Subs Amt. to SC Check Total 3/30/2006 $11,107.97 $11,107.97 3/30/2006 $6,767.50 $6,767.50 2/15/2007 $12,010.50 $12,010.50 7/31/2007 $13,930.00 $14,266.60 $28,196.60 10/31/2007 $7,777.00 $14,043.20 $21,820.20 1/15/2008 $11,127.90 $11,127.90 2/28/2008 $10,094.00 $10,094.00 3/13/2008 $12,433.99 $12,433.99 3/31/2008 $14,477.00 $14,477.00 4/30/2008 $21,318.59 $21,318.59 10/15/2008 $5,795.70 $5,795.70 11/26/2008 $13,690.55 $13,690.55 12/30/2008 $25,215.81 $25,215.81 2/26/2009 $29,872.25 $29,872.25 2/26/2009 $23,049.60 $23,049.60 3/31/2009 $9,700.82 $9,700.82 5/28/2009 $10,392.90 $10,392.90 7/30/2009 $5,449.30 $5,449.30 7/30/2009 $26,735.17 $26,735.17 $21,707.00 $277,549.35 $299,256.35 PO#04-0142 Date 1/21/2004 Interim Interchange Improvements $91,000 Check Date Pd. to Subs Amt. to SC Check Total 1/28/2004 $12,502.03 $12,502.03 3/11/2004 $8,985.14 $8,985.14 4/30/2004 $50,068.17 $50,068.17 8/30/2004 $3,522.94 $1,362.04 $4,884.98 10/28/2004 $1,607.06 $2,835.94 $4,443.00 1/31/2005 $4,204.77 $4,204.77 9/15/2005 $781.92 $781.92 $5,130.00 $80,740.01 $85,870.01 GAD = Geometric Approval Document PO#06-0128 Date 09/05/2005 Authorized Additional Work - Env. Study $1,000,000 Check Date Pd. to Subs Amt. to SC Check Total 1/28/2010 $42,712. 86 $89,470. 22 $132,183.08 1/28/2010 $46,897. 53 $28,900. 20 $75,797.73 1/28/2010 $34,455. 80 $29,070. 21 $63,526.01 1/28/2010 $35,565. 93 $33,084. 80 $68,650.73 2/25/2010 $76,256. 65 $24,924. 81 $101,181.46 3/15/2010 $52,422. 30 $20,547. 61 $72,969.91 $288,311.07 $225,997.85 $514,308.92 Sc PO#01-0238 $149,140.90 Project Study Report PO#04-0142 $80,740.01 Interim Interchange Imp. PO#06-0128 $277,549.35 Project Report, Geometric Approval Document Environmental/GAD $225,977.85 TOTAL $733,408.11 Page 5 of 83 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92330 PURCHASE REQUISITION VENDOR NAME: l~ jh 191 y e r(oE3 SHIPTO: ADDRESS:/ ¢ 3 ~Q 3-// iov 1n Ave-, 14 ~ t y! 11,6 e14 /Z 3%ZATTENTION: f ~ PHONE:: L t2 -7 1 G- PURCHASE ORDER# D fJ D Z. HAS THIS BEEN ORDERED?: YES NO ORDER DATE: ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL r' o - 2 0 ° 41 ?G L >bc Ved S'c L_- U, FOY 2cl J=1 I D), 3I wovk- OV k,v~lta fovkda/e~ ~e~oy~ CSC S~yvcfvve T~- aka ~y S/ C -tcot% f/ X3 On all. REQUISITION APPROVAL SUBTOTAL $ SUBMITTEDBY fa VRIm- SALESTAX $ SUPERVISOR APPROVAL ~f FREIGHT $ DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL DISCOUNT $ FUNDS AVAILABLE-FINANCE TOTAL $ FINANCE-WHITE (REV 5190) DEPARTMENT - CANARYPage 6 Of 83 DATE: ? - u-0 \ fV l 5b5 JJ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92330 PURCHASE REQUISITION VENDOR NAME: n~ l !LI C P I h S SHIPTO: ADDRESS: 1,4ye Sur-fit 1 ~4 v/ r- '10 Vv I fle CA ?Z-V2- PHONE: .1 7G+01 /:-s° 7 -7 / Z- n (7 601 `~yD HAS THIS BEEN ORDERED?: YES NO DATE: 4-24-ao ATTENTION: 's-s/ eOr _a v E' ~ PURCHASE ORDER# l/2 ORDER DATE: ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE ZKf-2>-4/ (v [ YDV! ~I e s~n f~s.reo~j S~VV1C ~1 2 UTe )a o 1 t CPS k CCn~e o~ [tievl~ zt S' F-;- J Cr$y Cc ur,si! oi, A.prV 6 tv-Doo REQUISITION APPROVAL SUBMITTED BY / SUPERVISOR APPROVAL DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL FUNDS FINANCE-WHITE (REV 5190) DEPARTMENT-CANARY SUBTOTAL SALESTAX FREIGHT DISCOUNT W TOTAL TOTAL $ / s-0 S°b® $ /it Page 7 of 83 lcl3lb RE CITY OF LAKE EL RECEIVEd CITY OF. LAKE ELSINORE DATE: /O~Z9 °3 130 S MAIN STREET NOV O 5 2003 ,L7(KEOELSINORE,CA92 0 ENGINEERINGDEPARTMt:N~ VVV~ )~~~""PPP~,~ 7~ 0' / URCHASE REQUISITION VENDORNAME: SHIPTO:'/h ADDRESS: I 3 ~ 0 641 , Tarr ,4 ,4 me \OTq//! ...ATTENTION: _~D p PHONE: ( 7/00/ 9~S 7712- PURCHASEORDER# HAS THIS BEEN ORDERED?: YES ~ NO ORDER DATE: J~J/Z~/6 3 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 205 Rte ~/-/S imdrodewc~~71s REQUISITION APPROVAL SUBMITTED BY l .lf-~Gd SUPERVISOR APPROVAL DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL FUNDS AVAILABLE-FINANCE FINANCE- WHITE (REV5I90) DEPARTMENT-CANARY SUBTOTAL SALESTAX FREIGHT DISCOUNT TOTAL /DO $ !`i0o D Page 8 of 83 RtLtivty 2005 *CEMANAGER CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92330 PURCHASE REQUISITION DATE: VENDORNAME:.~C,..f-19 ~l~ICB IKfA SHIPTO: ADDRESS:. I4 3~ O ~t rQ•'11 % 4 RYflet Sl/l~.Prl~~ V toryille Cl4 9Z,ffj2 ATTENTION; L~ KLtt/z L PHONE: 17G 0~ 7"'772' PURCHASEORDER# HAS THIS BEEN ORDERED?: YES -X- NO ORDER DATE: ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL /.Gka~rsfi2uG~vl - -?,ar!^4'y27 F .REQUISITION APPROVAL SUBMITTED BY L j SUPERVISOR APPROVAL DEPARTMENT HEAD APPI (REV 5/90) SUBTOTAL $ SALESTAX $ FREIGHT $ DISCOUNT $ TOTAL $ ZT~~ FINANCE-WHITE DEPARTMENT - CANARY Page 9 of 83 PURCHASE ORDER LOG SHEET VENDOR NAME: SC ENGINEERING JOB DESCRIPTION: RR CNYN/115 IC PROJECT REPORTS ACCT.#: OWN" Payment Record P.O.#: 06-0128 Vendor#: 1565 Bus. Lic.#: P.O. Amount C.O.#: 1 $ C.O.#: $ C.O.#: $ TOTAL P.O. 1,299,274 Inv.# Pymt Date P.O. Balance Notes RAILROAD 05-01-01 3/30/2006 11,107.97 1,288,166.03 RAILROAD 05-01-02 3/30/2006 6,767.50 1,281,398.53 RAILROAD 05-01-03 2/15/2007 12,010.50 1,269,388.03 RAILROAD 05-01/04 7/31/2007 28,196.60 1,241,191.43 RAILROAD 05-01-05 10/31/2007 21,820.20 1,219,371.23 RAILROAD 05-01-06 1/15/2008 11,127.90 1,208,243.33 RAILROAD 05-01-08 2/28/2008 10,094.00 1,198,149.33 RAILROAD 05-01-07 3/13/2008 12,433.99 1,185,715.34 RAILROAD 05-01-09 3/31/2008 14,477.00 1,171,238.34 RAILROAD 05-01-10 4/30/2008 21,318.59 1,149,919.75 RAILROAD 05-01-11 10115/2008 5,795.70 1,144,124.05 RAILROAD 05-01-12 11/26/2008 13,690.55 1,130,433.50 RAILROAD 05-01-13 12/30/2008 25,215.81 1,105,217.69 RAILROAD 05-01-14 2/26/2009 29,872.25 1,075,345.44 RAILROAD 05-01-15 2/26/2009 23,049.60 1,052,295.84 RAILROAD 05-01-16 3/31/2009 9,700.82 1,042,595.02 RAILROAD 05-01-17 5/2812009 10,392.90 1,032,202.12 RAILROAD-05-01-18 7/30/2009 5,449.30 1,026,752.82 APR'09 RAILROAD-05-01-19 7/30/2009 26,735.17 1,000,017.65 MAY'09 RAILROAD 05-01-20 1/28/2010 17.65 132,183.08. 867,816.92 RAILROAD 05-01-21 1/28/2010 75,797.73 792,019.19 RAILROAD 05-01-22 1128/2010 63,526.01 728,493.18 RAILROAD 05-01-23 1/2812010 68,650.73 659,842.45 RAILROAD 05-01-24 2/25/2010 101,181.46 558,660.99 JAN-10 558,660.99 558,660.99 299,274.00 441,339.01 Page 10 of 83 CAPITAL PROJECT LOG SHEET CONTRACTOR: ~h a „~E r C _ ACCT.#: 2o 5-o6Urj- c-/h Ln~-J c7 -~E7 ~ Payment Record P.O.#: 0 Co Vendor#: JE6S Buslic.#: Contract cl g q ] y 00 J C.O.#: $ C.O.#..$ C.O.#: $ Inv.# Date: Amount Retention Check total P.O. Balance Notes yv a 0) 1.314" ff~ //,/t)7,97 /ta ! 116"X 7 lb6.0 3 0> - o~oi v PA.' -7&7.5 0 V ;19- -47 39E }^~a;IraaL a as ld O/o-So A) Id 0/0 . Sd s' -i6q 29 3 >6-i dr FET. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Ra/l ove ti- fo. 06 Se.~ a-Ngcl..r~1 Page 11 of 83 c CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Brady, Community Development Director FROM: Ray O'Donnell, City Engineer BY Chuck Mackey, City Traffic Engineer DATE: December 2, 2002 Updated: December 30, 2002 Updated January 9, 2003 Updated February 19, 2003 Updated March 3, 2003 Updated May 15, 2003 Updated May 29, 2003 SUBJECT: HISTORY OF 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE STUDY PSR reports have been submitted to Caltrans as shown below: April 2001 Draft Screen. Check, less several required studies August 2001, First complete study May 2002, included new required studies and reports September 2002 A PSR(PDS) report was submitted December 26, 2002. 2nd PSR(PDS) submitted January 20, 2003. Timeline with comments: April 2000 Contract with SC Engineering approved 4/24/00 SC Engineering meets at City with Engr Div 5/31/00 SC Engineering meets at City with Engr Div 7117/00 Kick-off meeting with Caltrans. Meeting attendees include SC Engr(1), City (2), LSA (2), TY Lin(1), and Caltrans(9). 8 alternatives were discussed. 8/21/00 Meeting with Caltrans. Discussion on how to modify the traffic model to include City's growth projection. Other items discussed included ROW data sheet procedures, accident data, etc. 11/17/00 SC Engr sends to City a LOS report on the alternatives. 12/04/00 SC Engr sends to City Alt 9 geometric, LOS, and cost estimate. 12/20/00 SC Engr presents to City Council the various alternatives. Council agreed to proceed with alternatives 2, 3, 7, and 9. 1/08/01 Meeting with Caltrans. Alternatives 2, 3, 7 and 9 were presented as the alternatives to be studied in the PSR. 2/20/01 Meeting with Caltrans. Caltrans recommends that the study includes the evaluation of realigning Grape and Casino to provide 160-M to the ramps. Page 12 of 83 After a lengthy discussion, the recommendation will not be investigated due to impacts on existing business. Other recommendations were to be integrated into the PSR. 3/20/01 SC Engr requests ROW data sheets be prepared by Caltrans for the four alternatives. 3/30/01 SC Engr by letter sends Caltrans a list of potential design exceptions. April 30, 2001 Draft PSR submitted. This is a "Screen Check" Draft, evidently 1 copy only, and missing the data that SC Engr had requested in March from Caltrans (PYSCAN, etc). August, 2001 First complete PSR submitted. 10/17/01 Response letter of comments. Not all departments responding. 11/07/01 2nd response letter of comments re PSR. 11/27/01 Meeting with Caltrans re PSR response. Caltrans had 8 people at meeting. Additional studies and reports are. required. 12/2/01 3rd response letter of comments re PSR. May 1, 2002 Second complete PSR submitted. PSR included a Bridge Advance Planning Study, a Preliminary Foundation Report, Hydrology Report, and Assessment of Existing Bridge Seismic Performance. 7/10/02 Response letterof comments. Comments were relatively short. Design had 3 limited comments. September, 2002 Third complete PSR submitted. 11/12/02 Response letter of comments. Design comments are intensive and include . requirement to include a full standard alternative study. 12/05/02 Meeting with Caltrans including the DDD Design, HQ reviewers, and Design reviewer. City was told City's consultant could calculate ROW costs without having to wait for ROW data sheets. Agreement was made that a bare bones full standard alternative would be required. City made itclearthat cul- de-sacs for Grape and Casino would be unacceptable, and that the full standard alternative should not be excessively studied, since all seemed to agree that it would be discarded at some future date. 12/17/02 Meeting with Caltrans. City's consultant presented Alt 11, the full standard alternative that shows Grape realigned through Wal-Mart's parking lot. After much discussion, ROW data sheets and a more realistic full standard alternative were required. Grape Street is to be routed behind Wal-Mart. City noted that the hills behind Wal-Mart are quite high and may be very unrealistic to get any road down to the grade of Railroad Canyon Road. Note: ROW data sheets will likely add 3 to 4 months more delay. 12/19/02 Clarification from Caltrans from DDD Design that City's consultant can calculate ROW costs and that full standard alternative needs to show Grape Street routed behind Wal-Mart. Page 13 of 83 December 26, 2002 Fourth Report Submitted as PSR(PDS) 01/08/03 Meeting with Caltrans. City emphasized that the study needs to be finalized in the very near future. Caltrans Design gave City's consultant some preliminarily comments re the submitted PSR(PDS) study. SC Engineering will add LOS calculations for Alt. 11, the full standard alternative, for the freeway ramp street intersections, freeway merge points and weaving sections, along with a map of the City's planned circulation element improvements. Caltrans will use the final PSR(PDS) document to request FHWA approval of the conceptual improvements. The PSR(PDS) will be resubmitted by January 13. 01/20103 Updated PSR(PDS) Submitted 02/18/03 Meeting with Caltrans. Design noted 22 needed corrections to the PSR(PDS). There was a discussion regarding how to handle the preliminary environmental documents for the (PDS) format. The HQ reviewer entered the meeting at that time. It was emphasized that the PSR(PDS) must follow the State guidelines. No exceptions will be allowed. City's consultant stated that everything regarding content is in the PSR(PDS). The HQ reviewer insists that the content must be listed in the correct place. City's consultant agreed to comply. Caltrans Projects agreed to have prior requested data needed to complete the PSR(PDS) done by 2/21/03. A work meeting was scheduled for 2/27103 for the City consultant to sit down with HQ and Design reviewers to resolve any questions and correct the PSR(PDS). 02/27/03 Work meeting with Caltrans. Rebecca Mowry, HQ Design Reviewer, and Mark Fertile, District 8 Design Reviewer met with Sal Chavez and Chuck Mackey. The meeting focused on correcting the draft study to organize it to PSR(PDS) guidelines. The draft study was reviewed and corrected section by section of the PSR(PDS) guidelines. Sal was provided input on corrections and additions needed. At the end of the meeting there were several items left unanswered. Project Management needed to furnish data (PYPSCAN) that was promised for a week before. PEAR (prelim environmental study) needed to be reviewed by Caltrans environmental staff. Sal thought that the corrected study could be updated and delivered the first part of this week. That is now doubtful since PEAR needs to be reviewed and any feedback integrated into the PSR(PDS). 05/15/03 Met with Caltrans, to discuss their request change to the PEAR(prelim envir analysis report) because it was not in the right format. Maice Petry of envir. section had not seen the PSR until a few weeks ago and wanted the format change to the new 12/2001 format. Some one else had reviewed the PEAR before and it was never brought up before. Sal presented the revised PEAR at the meeting and there were some minor changes needed which he will make and email them to in a few days. Envir section will review the PEAR and have comments in 2 weeks. Sal will submit 4 copies of the ISA (initial Site Assessment). Caltrans had lost the ISA and wanted more copies for Page 14 of 83 review. There will be a meeting in 2 weeks to discuss PEAR comments if any. 05/29/03 Met with Caltrans to review comments from Marie Petry, Sal made all changes to PEAR and presented them to Marie, she seemed satisfied that Sal make corrections to the PEAR. Caltrans (Barbara Sylvia) agreed another cultural resources records search will not be necessary for this PEAR, it will be done laterwith Project Study. Comments from Paul Lambert dated 2-6-03 have not been seen before by Sal. Sal will add comments about lead in soil in the Proj. Study Report other comments will be addressed in the Storm Water Data Report. Sal will turn in the Storm Water Data Report next week this is a 1 or 2 page document which should be fairly simple. The ISA (Initial Site Assessment) is being reviewed and we should receive comments in a few weeks. The ISA review will not delay approval of the Proj. Study Report. The Proj. Study Report should be approved in 2 or 3 weeks. t3 r-a 14 v ILW~ fit 7-la_03 fS _ 2-'q - 9 5_03 Page 15 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Brief Project History 09-05-2003 Caltrans Approves Project Study Report (Project Development Support) (PSR (PDS)). 07-14-2004 SC Engineering selected to perform Project Report and Environmental Document. 02-22-2005 Notice to Proceed issued to SC Engineering. 05-26-2005 Kick-Off Meeting (Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting) held with Caltrans and City staff. At the Kick off meeting, City was informed that Caltrans was converting back to English Units from Metric Units. 07-27-2005 Transmitted to Caltrans "Railroad Canyon Road Viable Alternative" Letter requesting elimination of Alternative 6 - Full Standard Alternative. 01-19-2006 SC Engineering executes Agreement for Professional Services dated December 1, 2005. Contract/Agreement No. 1877. 01-26-2006 Project re-started. PDT Meeting #2 held with Caltrans and City staff. The following five alternatives were discussed: > Alternative 2 - Widen and Reconstruct Diamond Interchange (Minimum Build Alternative) > Alternative 3 - NB Hook Ramps to Grape Street; SB Half Diamond Ramp Configuration > Alternative 4 - NB Hook Ramps to Grape Street; SB Hook Ramps to Casino Road (NEW ALTERNATIVE) > Alternative 5 - NB Hook Ramps to Grape St; SB Loop Exit Ramp; SB Hook Entrance Ramp from Casino Road (NEW ALTERNATIVE) 02-20-2006 Transmitted to Caltrans "Alternative Analysis Report" for review. Alternative Analysis investigated the above listed alternatives, including Alternative 1 - No Built. 03-01-2006 PDT Meeting #3 held with Caltrans and City staff. Caltrans requested that Alternative 6 - Full standard alternative be included as a viable alternative. Caltrans requested letter to formally drop old PSR (PDS) Alternative 9 and 10. 03-06-2006 Transmittal to Caltrans requesting "Elimination of Alternatives - PSR (PDS) Alternatives 9 and 10". 04-05-2006 PDT Meeting #4 held with Caltrans and City staff. Caltrans requested that a Value Analysis (VA) Study be performed on the project. 05-11-2006 PDT Meeting #5 held with Caltrans and City staff. Caltrans has scheduled a VA Study to be performed starting June 2006. PROJECT ON HOLD, with the exception of VA Study support. > VA Study starts July 11, 2006 and end on July 20, 2006 (5-Day VA Study per FHWA Requirements) > Preliminary VA Study is issued on August 15, 2006. > Caltrans VA Implementation Meeting held on September 26, 2006. > Final VA Study issued on October 10, 2006. 07-06-2006 Transmittal to Caltrans regarding "Declaration of Units of Measure - English". 11-01-2006 PDT Meeting #6 held with Caltrans and City staff. Final VA Study recommended the following eight alternatives be further investigated: 1. Single Point (Urban) Interchange -AGREED TO BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED. 2. Tight Diamond Interchange -DISCARDED AS NOT VIABLE. 3. Realign the Northbound On-Ramps and Off Ramps with Summerhill Drive -DISCARDED AS NOT VIABLE. 4. New Split Diamond Interchange at Franklin Street- DISCARDED AS NOT VIABLE. Page 16 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Brief Project History 5. New Full Movement Interchange at Franklin Street-AGREED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE. 6. New Full Movement Interchange at Franklin with Braided Ramps to Railroad Canyon Road - DISCARDED AS NOT VIABLE. 7. New Overcrossing at Malaga Road -AGREED TO BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED. 8. Make Casino Road a Right In/Right Out Access using a Raised Median - DISCARDED AS NOT VIABLE. At the PDT meeting, the Caltrans HQ Reviewer (Luis Betancourt) was brief on the VA recommendation. SC Engineering stated that if a new interchange or overcrossing is justified by the Traffic Study, the project would probably still be an EA/IS leading to a FONSI/ND, as stated in the approved Project Study Report. After some discussion, Mr. Betancourt stated that the project could move forward into the PR/ED phase. Mr. Betancourt stated that this should be discussed with FHWA, since FHWA will need to approve the new connection at Franklin Street. Caltrans stated that Mr. Bren George, FHWA Area Engineering will be in the District this month. The City of Lake Elsinore requested that a meeting be held with FHWA to update them on the proposed VA alternatives. Caltrans will set up a meeting with FHWA to update them on the project At the PDT meeting, it was concluded that a Traffic Development Study was required to determine if enough traffic could be diverted from Railroad Canyon Road to justify a new overcrossing and/or interchange. Since LSA, was contracted to perform the Environmental Technical Studies, SC Engineering requested a Scope of Work and Fee proposal to prepare a Traffic Development Report. SC Engineering received Scope of Work and Fee proposal on January 4, 2007. LSA issued NTP on January 15, 2007 upon execution of subconsultant contract. 11-14-2006 FHWA meeting held with Caltrans, City, and FHWA Area Engineer (Bren George) SC Engineering and the City stated that a Traffic Study would be performed to determine the LOS improvements to Railroad Canyon Road and any operational impacts to Interstate Route 15. SC Engineering stated that any impacts to 1-15 would be mitigated with auxiliary lanes between the new ramps at Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road. SC Engineering stated that the proposed improvements (new interchange at Franklin Street or new overcrossing at Malaga Road) were discussed with Mr. Luis Betancourt, Caltrans Project Development Coordinator at the last Project Development Team Meeting. Mr. Betancourt felt that the project could be carried as one project. Mr. George stated that FHWA was in agreement with combining a new interchange at Franklin Street or a new overcrossing at Malaga Road and carrying the project as one project through PANED phase. Mr. George stated that if the Traffic Analysis reflected that either a new interchange or overcrossing would improve the LOS at Railroad Canyon Road and meet the "Need and Purpose" of the project, then FHWA would prefer that the project move forward as one project instead of two separate projects. This way, there would not be question of "independent utility" of separating the improvements into two projects. Therefore, the City would have to commit to ALL improvements. Mr. George stated that a New Connection Report would be required and that approval of the new interchange would have to be approved at Washington, D.C. Mr. George recommended that once the Traffic Study was completed, that a meeting be scheduled with FHWA (Mr. Tay Dam and Mr. Bren George) to discuss the finding. SC Engineering will move forward with the Traffic Study. 02-07-2007 PDT Meeting #7 held with Caltrans and City staff. SC Engineering stated that the Traffic Page 17 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Brief Project History Development Study has begun. SCAG model data requested. Volumes would be projected out to the Design Year 2030. 04-04-2007 PDT Meeting #8 held with Caltrans and City staff. SCAG model data received. It was agreed to project the Design Year to 2035. Anticipated submittal of Draft Traffic Volumes with 2 weeks. 05-17-2007 PDT Meeting #9 held with Caltrans and City staff. Preliminary Traffic Volume Development diagrams prepared. Results reflect very high year 2035 peak hour traffic volumes, in excess of 3000 vph. Discussed with Caltrans, Caltrans recommended using the CETAP or RCIP model to develop the 2035 Traffic Volumes. At the PDT Meeting the following alternatives would be investigated: > Alternative 2a (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 2b (Diamond IC) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 3a (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 3b (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 4a (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 4b (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 5a (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 5b (Hook Ramps to Grape St1S13 Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 6a (Single Point IC) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 6b (Single Point IC) w/ Malaga Road OC 06-06-2007 PDT Meeting #10 held with Caltrans and City staff. Further discussion held with Caltrans regarding the CETAP or RCIP model. SC Engineering agreed to order RGIR-rnodel from the County of Riverside. At the PDT Meeting Caltrans requested the investigation of a combined project alternative with a new interchange at Franklin Street and a new overcrossing at Malaga Road. The following alternatives will now be investigated: > Alternative 2a (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 2b (Diamond IC) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 2c (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC > Alternative 3a (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 3b (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 3c (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC > Alternative 4a (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 4b (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 4c (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC > Alternative 5a (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 5b (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 5c (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC & Malaga Rd OC > Alternative 6a (Single Point IC) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 6b (Single Point IC) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 6c (Single Point IC) w/ Malaga Road OC & Malaga Road OC 08-01-2007 PDT Meeting #11 held with Caltrans and City staff. SC Engineering received RCIP model to develop 2035 Traffic Volumes from the County of Riverside on August 13, 2007. LSA developing Traffic Volume Development Study. Anticipated submittal to Caltrans within 1 month. 09-24-2007 1 n Draft of Traffic Volume Development Report submitted to Caltrans. 10-03-2007 PDT Meeting #12 held with Caltrans and City staff. Caltrans reported that the Traffic Volume Development Report was under review and should be completed shortly. Anticipate comments from Page 18 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Brief Project History Caltrans within a month. 10-16-2007 Comments received from Caltrans on Traffic Volume Development Report. 11-27-2007 PDT Meeting #13 held with Caltrans and City staff. 2nd Draft Traffic Volume Development Report submitted to Caltrans. 11-29-2007 Assisted City staff in 2008 RIP Project Sheets and Update. 12-19-2007 Comments received from Caltrans on Traffic Volume Development Report. 01-02-2008 PDT Meeting #14 held with Caltrans and City staff. Since there were no major comments on the Traffic Volume Development Report, it was agreed that the Traffic Impact Analysis would be prepared and submitted to Caltrans. It was mutually agreed that all alternatives would be fully analyzed, including: > Freeway Mainline Level of Service (LOS) Analysis > Ramp-Merge - Diverge LOS Analysis > Weave LOS Analysis > Intersection LOS Analysis It was mutually agreed to include the analysis of the adjacent interchange (Main Street and Bundy Canyon Road). SC Engineering agreed to include in analysis. SC Engineering agreed to prepare a LOS-Cost Matrix to analyses all alternatives. Environmental Processing is now ready to begin. SC Engineering has requested an Environmental Scoping Meeting with Caltrans Environmental Branch. 01-17-2008 Environmental Scoping Meeting held with Caltrans Environmental Branch. At the meeting, it was agreed that a Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) was not required. The following required Environmental Technical Studies have been identified for the new project: > Community Impact Study > Floodplain Evaluation > Noise Study and NADAR > Cumulative Impact Study > Preliminary Geotechnical Report > Cultural Resource Assessment > Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Growth Inducing Study > Special Studies Required (County Landfill Area) > Visual Impact Study > Air Quality Analysis > Paleontological Resources > Draft Relocation Impact Report > Water Quality Report > Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Biological (Natural Environmental Study) At the meeting Caltrans requested an Environmental Scoping Package. 02-06-2008 PDT Meeting #15 held with Caltrans and City staff. SC Engineering reported that the LOS analysis was taking longer than anticipated. SC Engineering has targeted February 14, 2008 to submit to Caltrans. SC Engineering has prepared a LOS-Cost Matrix to analysis all alternatives. SC Engineering submitted the Environmental Scoping Package to Caltrans. Environmental Scoping Package included: Preliminary Geometric Drawings for: o Alternative 1-No Built o Alternatives 2A, 2B & 2C o Alternatives 3A, 313, & 3C o Alternatives 4A, 4B, & 4C o Alternatives 5A, 56, & 5C o Alternatives 6A, 613, & 6C One WBS 160.30 Develop Environmental Study Request 10 copies of the Project Narrative Page 19 of 83 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Brief Project History • 10 copies of the Approved PSR (PDS) • 10 copies of the Final VA Study 03-05-2008 PDT Meeting #16 held with Caltrans and City staff. Again, SC Engineering reported that the LOS analysis was taking longer than anticipated. SC Engineering has targeted March 11, 2008 to submit to Caltrans. SC Engineering reported that ONLY the existing year 2007 and projected Design Year 2035 would be analyzed. The Open Year 2015 would be investigated once the alternatives have been reduced. Caltrans requested a recommendation section. SC Engineering to include a Recommendation Section in the Traffic Impact Analysis. SC Engineering reported that a preliminary vertical alignment had been established for the Malaga Road overcrossing. The preliminary alignment revealed steep grades (9%) on Malaga Road, with impacts to the Casino. 04-02-2008 PDT Meeting #17 held with Caltrans and City staff. SC Engineering that they the Traffic Impact Analysis was completed and was currently being reviewed internally. SC Engineering has targeted to submit the report to Caltrans within a week. Since the Traffic Impact Analysis was approximately 1,500 sheets (double sided), SC Engineering requested an exact number of copies be requested by Caltrans. SC Engineering stated that typically 5 copies are submitted to Caltrans. Later that day, Caltrans requested eight (8) copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. It was also agreed that the PDT meeting in May would be cancelled since Caltrans would be reviewing the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. SC Engineering reported that the Traffic Impact Analysis will recommend the following alternatives: > Alternative 313 (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) > Alternative 48 (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) > Alternative 513 (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC All other alternatives should be discarded due to construction cost/right of way impacts and/or geometric constraints. 04-11-2008 Traffic Impact Analysis Report submitted to Caltrans for review. 06-02-2008 Comments received from Caltrans on the Traffic Impact Analysis. No major issue, anticipate re- submittal to Caltrans for approval on June 16, 2008. 06-04-2008 Next schedule PDT Meeting. Page 20 of 83 5,q(- C'04416T 6"tAf Ico I-41RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #18 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4t Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 June 4, 2008 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/issues ® Traffic Volume Development/Traffic Analysis 6 X* = 20 > Caltrans Review- Received June 2, 2008 C✓ ✓ Comments Received from: Design Oversight CCC"` ~ d ® K~~S Operations-Surveillance Region A Electrical Operations Development Review ✓ Elimination of Alternatives/Analysis Data a. Alternative 2 and 6 - KaV twin z_d S'ad"samL b. Alternative Subcategory (c) and (d) Q Submittal Date - June 16, 2008 / 4 Copies t,6 W&-bW >='vR AaV/E'W = Co"JL04.6?4 a CR 15),4 0 #F JU L'v ® Preliminary Geometric Drawings/Alternatives to be further Investigated > Alternative 3B (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape St(Casino Dr) > Alternative 4B (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape St(SB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) > Alternative 5B (Hook Ramps to Grape St1SB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC O Environmental - Mobilizing 5VAV 'Y 2.00) > Community Impact Study RYir _ > Visual Impact Study > Floodplain Evaluation > Air Quality Analysis > Noise Study and NADAR > Paleontological Resources > Cumulative Impact Study > Draft Relocation Impact Report > Preliminary Geotechnicai Report > Water Quality Report > Cultural Resource Assessment > Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Biological (Natural Environmental Study) > Growth Inducing Study > Special Studies Required (County Landfill Area) 2. Open Period/Discussion ® Project Schedule - 44e_rX.41,*f A&-\or66r Il Coµs46l r ❑x Meeting with FHWA - lJAW 6&m"61_11A Y PAAA d6-*(y Ari"jr,?- ® Action Item List 01I ars ASWV7C WlS'gLNowr C&,.4~Tns6 REVilr 7R4rr1C fT4OY ® Open Discussion -OeTl6e/ 4p coo Fvie 1°AOrD gel w Art- 4~ 57C .&.0f 3. Next Meeting -July 2, 2008 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 -&WV. I"OGuS m4v,&$ CT-UjOiEf AM,4 Paget ` EF91NO 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 19 08-RIV-15- PM 16.53/20.07 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Reconfigure/Realign Ramps EA OA4400 SUBJECT: PDT Meeting No. 19 DATE OF MEETING: July 2, 2008 @ 1:30 PM LOCATION: Caltrans Conference Room 1227 ATTENDEES: NAME Mark Pertile Mahmuda Akhter Hieu Trinh Thomas Tu Aung Naing Gary Green Alan Nakano John Stanton Roy King Ray Desselle Ken Seumalo Sal Chavez FIRM/DEPARTMENT Caltrans Design Caltrans Design Oversight Caltrans Operations Caltrans Operations Caltrans Forecasting Caltrans Forecasting Caltrans Storm Water Caltrans Landscaping Caltrans Hydraulics Caltrans Landscape Architect City of Lake Elsinore SC Engineering cc: All Attendees Attachments: Agenda All PDT Members File: 1-15/Railroad Cyn Rd TELEPHONE 909-383-4243 909-383-8345 909-383-4558 909-383-4217 909-388-5904 909-388-7017 909-383-7515 909-383-6256 909-383-4555 909-383-4529 951-674-3124 x 244 760-955-7712 Project File: 66 uiscussion Project Items/Issues Traffic Impact Analysis Re-Submittal to Caltrans: SC Engineering reported that 4 copies of the revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Response to Caltrans Comments, and data CD were resubmitted to Caltrans. The revised TIA address comments that were received from Design Oversight, Operations-Surveillance Region A, Electrical Operations, and Development Review. Caltrans reported that the review period will be approximately 6 weeks. Caltrans Forecasting requested to review the TIA. The City of Lake Elsinore gave there copy of the TIA to Caltrans Design Oversight. Design Oversight will forward the TIA to Caltrans Forecasting. SC Engineering requested that Caltrans concur or comment on the Conclusion/Recommendation Section of the TIA. The Conclusion/Recommendation Section recommends that the following alternatives be further investigated and a full determination of construction cost, right of way impacts, environmental impacts, and geometric constraints be investigated. Caltrans Alternative 3B (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) Alternative 4B (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) Alternative 6B (Hook Ramps to Grape St/SB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC Page 22 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 19 08-RIV-15- PM 16.53/20.07 EA OA4400 July 2, 2008 If there are no financial constraints (funding available for construction and right of way acquisition) and geometric constraints (minimum bridge vertical clearance at 1-15, >8% profile grades, property access to Casino) can be overcome, then the following alternatives should be further investigated: Alternative 3D (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin St IC & Malaga Rd OC Alternative 4D (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC Alternative 5D (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC & Malaga Rd OC SC Engineering stated that the next submittal will address the 2016 Opening Year Analysis and would like to limit the number of alternatives to be studied. Preliminary Geometric Drawings/Alternatives to be further Investigated: The following alternatives will be further investigated, as outlined in the TIA: Alternative 36 (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) Alternative 4B (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) Alternative 56 (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC SC Engineering will wait until the review of the TIA to move forward on the Preliminary Geometric Drawings. Environmental: To date the following environmental technical studies have been identified to be prepared for the Environmental Document: > Community Impact Study > Floodplain Evaluation > Noise Study and NADAR > > Cumulative Impact Study > > Preliminary Geotechnical Report > > Cultural Resource Assessment > > Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > > Growth Inducing Study > Special Studies Required (County Landfill Area) Visual Impact Study Air Quality Analysis Paleontological Resources Draft Relocation Impact Report Water Quality Report Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) Biological (Natural Environmental Study) SC Engineering stated that the Caltrans Environmental Branch stated that any special studies required for the County Landfill will be recommended in the Preliminary Site Assessment Report. SC Engineering reported that the environmental technical reports are on holding, pending the concurrence of the recommendation section of the TIA. Page 23 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 19 08-RIV-15- PM 16.53/20.07 EA OA4400 July 2, 2008 2. 1 Open Period/Discussion Design Cooperative Agreement: Caltrans and the City of Lake Elsinore will move forward in finalizing and executing the Agreement. Currently, the City of Lake Elsinore has the Agreement and is currently reviewing the Agreement. Project Schedule: The updated project schedule was forward along with the Agenda for today's PDT meeting. Only comments from Environmental Engineering were sent to SC Engineering, SC Engineering incorporated their comments. Caltrans recommended that the PDT track Deliverables. SC Engineering will track Deliverables. Meeting with FHWA: Caltrans requested that prior to the meeting with FHWA that aerial exhibits with assumed improvements at Bundy Canyon Road and Main Street be sent to Caltrans for review and concurrence with FHWA. SC Engineering will forward the exhibits and written portion of the assumed improvements at Bundy Canyon Road and Main Street to Caltrans when they are completed. Other Items: Caltrans requested that the meeting minutes be sent to all PDT 3. I Next Meeting - The next PDT Meeting is scheduled on August 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM at Caltrans Conference Room 1227. Page 24 of 83 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #19 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 0 Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 July 2, 2008 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues x❑ Traffic Impact Analysis > Re-Submittal to Caltrans ✓ Conclusions/Recommendations Section a. Alternative 2 and 6 b. Alternative Subcategory (c) and (d) > Anticipated Caltrans Review date. 4U"r7' ( G, 26b8 - (Aen K b s /~eewc C,acrkA,*#f DC O Preliminary Geometric Drawings/Altematives to be further Investigated > Alternative 3B (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) > Alternative 4B (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) > Alternative 5B (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC O Environmental - Mobilizing > Community Impact Study > Visual Impact Study > Floodplain Evaluation > Air Quality Analysis > Noise Study and NADAR > Paleontological Resources > Cumulative Impact Study > Draft Relocation Impact Report > Preliminary Geotechnical Report > Water Quality Report > Cultural Resource Assessment > Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Biological (Natural Environmental Study) > Growth Inducing Study > Special Studies Required (County Landfill Area) 2. Open Period/Discussion O Design Cooperative Agreement O Project Schedule / Meeting with FHWA .4¢trkL 0[f0LA1' r-0~ 07/G7//~-Ws > Aerial Exhibits with Assumed Improvements at: ✓ Bundy Canyon Road Area ✓ Main Street Area ❑ Open Discussion AMV. ,wt.vc,701 GooAW*T?Ve 4aA&T 4W13 3. Next Meeting -August 6, 2008 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 -t- PRDcogr re, or *c-A& '.w,Ear sy ..,gs-v- 0,1. Page 25 of 83 IVIA P", 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Focus Meeting AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 0 Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 September 3, 2008 @ 1:30 PM 1. Caltrans Review Comments Dated August 15, 2008 Design Oversight Operations - Surveillance Region A o9/Lz XP 09I T_ D Electrical Operations Forecasting _2, Elimination of Alternatives EYJ A A~g77 o: ed: J1 tie Aaa✓t/ d&Tea2rrst r ~E ; 3. Re-submittal of TIA -September 8, 2008 cjvr 2z-rzs _i /0lpobto7 t Vd 4. Next Meeting - October 1, 2008 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 26 of 83 ~-a 4r lFY A1'AW)X A R-eo ,2.497 e~-F € _0 . -f ,e . 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT N WOO Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #20 j 0vF AGENDAS •~y fgP~/ C~rR~1 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA. OA4400 1°"'( Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 August 6, 2008 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues _ ❑x Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) l ~R~Y 7&C6w > Caltrans Review Status 4,u(- 13 72f ✓ Conclusions/Recommendations Section > Re-Submittal - Open Year Analysis -z 4016 -.a &ww D Preliminary Geometric Drawings/Alternatives to be further Investigated -On Hold Pending TIA 0P/31Z.d8 4r4,fw',1`6 ~ Alternative 313 (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC v6w tea.-spa'J > Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) - &4 a- F'rcq?roa KddLt ~JQ > Alternative 46 (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC ~ Q > Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) 6'-cv'a' > Alternative 513 (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC ❑ Environmental - On Hold Pending TIA (Aca, 13 w.... TT~ Community Impact Study > Visual Impact Study Floodplain Evaluation > Air Quality Analysis Noise Study and NADAR Cumulative Impact Study Preliminary Geotechnical Report Cultural Resource Assessment Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) Growth Inducing Study Special Studies Required (County Landfill Area) > Paleontological Resources > Draft Relocation Impact Report > Water Quality Report > Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Biological (Natural Environmental Study) 2. Open Period/Discussion O Design Cooperative Agreement - qu y e4j,0 4y a8/69/2CW6 D Project Schedule GE~L oEStcrarvo% > Environmental Comments Received O Meeting with FHWA O~~S > Aerial Exhibits with Assumed Improvements at: ✓ Bundy Canyon Road Area ✓ Main Street Area N Open Discussion /FEvrr/ FLroGf-F~ 3. Next Meeting - September 3, 2008 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 27 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-I5-PM 16.6/20.7 Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dated August 15, 2008 Conclusions/Recommendations 1. It is not clear why some of the alternatives, such as,~Olternatives 213, 2D, 5A, 5C, 68, 6C, and 6D are not being considered viable alternatives; where as alternative 4A is being considered viable. Refer to the summary tables for Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Please clarify or change the recommendation for alternative 4A. Alternative 4A is being recommended because it provides an overall better LOS then the other alternatives and can still be a standard-alone project. Will provide expanded explanation. /2. Please include delay and volume/capacity (v/c) ratio for all freeway mainline and ramp analysis in the LOS summary tables. -►®EY.hY Rok im?k o "V OK, will modify tables to include (v/c) ratio and delays. OPERATIONS-SURVEILLANCE REGION A Alternative 2D: Main Street Interchange Area (Assumed Improvements) 3. The lane geometry as described in items 4 and 5 for widening the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) off- ramps does not concur with that shown in Exhibit 17. Checked and revised texted to shared thru-turn lanes. Alternative 313: Main Street Interchange Area (Assumed Improvements) 4. The lane geometry as described in item 4 for widening the NB off-ramp to three approaching Main Street does not concur with that shown in Exhibit 23. Checked and Revised. Alternative 3D, Main Street Interchange Area (Assumed Improvements) 5. The lane geometry as described in item 4 for widening the NB off-ramp to three approaching Main Street does not concur with that shown in Exhibit 29. Checked and Revised. Alternative 46, Main Street Interchange Area (Assumed Improvements) 6. The lane geometry as described in item 4 for widening the NB off-ramp to three approaching Main Street does not concur with that shown in Exhibit 35. Checked and Revised. Alternative 4C, Main Street Interchange Area (Assumed Improvements) 7. The lane geometry as described in item 4 for widening the NB off-ramp to three approaching Main Street does not concur with that shown in Exhibit 38. Checked and Revised. Exhibit 3 8. Traffic volumes shown at the following intersections do not match with Appendix A (existing count data sheets). Please revise SYNCHRO outputs in Appendix B as needed. • Lakeshore Drive - Mission Trail/Diamond Drive (Intersection No. 4): Eastbound Thru (EBT) - PM, Westbound Left (WBL) - AM and PM • Auto Center Drive - Casino Drive/Diamond drive (Intersection No. 5): EBT -AM and PM • Interstate 15 (1-15) SB ramps/Railroad Canyon Road (Intersection No. 6): EBT - PM • 1-15 NB ramps/Railroad Canyon Road (Intersection No. 7): EBT - PM, Westbound Right (WBR) - AM and PM • Summer Hill Drive-Grape Street/ Railroad Canyon Road (Intersection No. 8): Eastbound (EB), Westbound (WB)-PM • 1-15 SB ramps/Main Street (Intersection No. 11): Eastbound Right (EBR) - AM SYNCHRO revised. Page 1 of 6 Page 28 of 83 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-15-PM 16.6/20.7 Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dated August 15, 2008 Exhibit 4 9. The LOS values shown at 1-15 SB and Bundy Canyon Road intersection (intersection no.14) (PM) do not match with that shown in Appendix B. Checked and revised. Exhibit 5 (No Built) 10. Please clarify why Franklin Street and Auto Center Drive intersection (intersection no. 1) shows improvements. For the No Build, it was assumed that Franklin Street would be extended north at intersection no. 1 and intersection no. 2 (Franklin Street-Grunder Drive-Canyon View Dr). Will incorporate text of T/A. SYNCHRO Files 11. Lost time of 4.0 seconds should be used for all analyzed scenarios. Repeat comments. See Operations previous comment 12. Will revised lost time to 4.0 seconds for all alternatives. Checked and only performed 4.0 lost time to Alternative 2. Appendix B 12. The lane geometries at Diamond Drive and Auto Center Drive intersection for westbound thru (WBT) and southbound thru (SBT) for existing 2007 calculations do not match with that shown in Exhibit 2. Checked and revised. Appendix C, 2040 Alternative 1 13. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 5: • Railroad Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: SB • Railroad Canyon Road/1-15 NB ramps: NB • Railroad Canyon Road/Summer Hill Drive: NB (AM only) • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: WBT and SBT Checked and revised. Appendix D, 2040 Alternative 2A 14. The lane geometries at Franklin Street and Canyon View Drive (both EB and WB) do not match with that shown in Exhibit 8. Checked and revised. Appendix E, 2040 Alternative 2B 15. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 11: • Franklin Street/1-15 SB ramps: EBT and WBT • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: WBT and SBT • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB (PM only) Checked and revised. 16. Incorrect volume inputs were used at the following intersections in PM: • Railroad Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive Checked and revised. Appendix F, 2040 Alternative 2C 17. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 14: • Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive: EB and NB • Main Street/1-15 NB ramps: Northbound right (NBR) • Malaga Road/Casino Road: EBL • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: WBT and SBT Checked and revised. Page 2 of 6 Page 29 of 83 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-I5-PM 16.6120.7 Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dated August 15, 2008 Appendix G, 2040 Alternative 2D 18. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 17: • Bundy Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: EB, WB and SB • Bundy Canyon Road/1-15 NB ramps: EB, WB and NB • Franklin Street/1-15 SB ramps: EB and WBT • Main Street/1-15 SB ramps: EB, WBT and SBR. Sign control in the appendix should show as 'signalized' instead of 'free.' • Main Street/1-15 NB ramps: EB, WB, and NB. Sign control in the appendix should show as 'signalized' instead of 'free' • Main Street/Camino Del Norte: NB (AM only) and all movements in PM. Sign control in the appendix should show as 'signalized' instead of'free. • Railroad Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: Southbound left (SBL) (PM only) • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: EBT, SBT, and WB (PM only) Checked and revised. 19. The volumes at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 18: • Franklin Street/Grinder Drive: EBT (AM) • Main Street/Camino Del Norte: EBR (PM) Checked and revised. Appendix H, 2040 Alternative 3A 20. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 20: • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: EB, NBT and SBL. EBL volumes in PM do not match with Exhibit 21. • Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street: EBT and NBT Checked and revised. 21. The EBL volumes (PM only) at Grape Street and 1-15 NB ramps intersection does not match with that shown in Exhibit 21. Checked and revised. Appendix I, 2040 Alternative 313 22. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 23: • Bundy Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: EB • Bundy Canyon Road/1-15 NB ramps: WB • Franklin Street/1-15 SB ramps: EB • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: EB, NBT and SBL • Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street: EBT and NBT Checked and revised. 23. The WBT and WBR volumes for AM at Main Street and 1-15 NB ramps intersection does not match with that shown in Exhibit 24. Checked and revised. Appendix J, 2040 Alternative 3C 24. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 26: • Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive: EB and NB • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: EB, NBT and SBL • Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street: EBT, WBL and NBT • Railroad Canyon Road/Auto Center Drive: EB and NBT Checked and revised. 25. The NBT volumes for PM at Diamond Drive and Lakeshore Drive intersection does not match with that shown in Exhibit 27. Checked and revised. Page 3 of 6 Page 30 of 83 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-15-PM 16.6120.7 Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dated August 15, 2008 Appendix K, 2040 Alternative 3D 26. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 29: • Franklin Street/1-15 SB ramps: EB and WBT • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB • Grape Street/I-15 NB ramps: EB, NBL and SB • Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street: EBT and NBT Checked and revised. Appendix L, 2040 Alternative 4A 27. Lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 32: • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB and WB • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: EB and SB • Railroad Canyon Road/Summerhill Drive: EB, NB, SB and WB (PM only) • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: EB, WBT, NBT and SBL • Railroad Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: EBR Checked and revised. 28. The NBR volumes at Casino Road and 1-15 SB ramps intersection does not match with that shown in Exhibit 33. Checked and revised. Appendix M, 2040 Alternative 4B 29. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 35: • Bundy Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: EBT • Franklin Street/I-15 SB ramps: EB and WBT • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB and WB Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: EB and SBL Railroad Canyon Road/Summerhill Drive: EBT and NBT Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: EBT, WBT, NBT, and SBL Checked and revised. 30. The WBT and WBR volumes for AM at Main Street and 1-15 NB ramps intersection does not match with that shown in Exhibit 36. Checked and revised. Appendix N, 2040 Alternative 4C 31. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 38: • Franklin Street/Auto Center Drive: EB and NB • Main Street/1-15 NB ramps: NBR • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB and WB • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: SBL • Railroad Canyon Road/Summerhill Drive: SB • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: EBT, WBT, NBT, and SBL Checked and revised. Appendix O, 2040 Alternative 4C 32. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 41: • Franklin Street/I-15 SB ramps: EB and WBT • Main Street/1-15 NB ramps: NBR. • Main Street/Camino Del Notre: EBR volumes do not match with Exhibit 41 • Diamond Drive/Lakeshore Drive: EB and WB • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: SBL • Diamond Drive/Auto Center Drive: EBT, WBT, NBT, and SBL • Bundy Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: EBT (PM only) Checked and revised. Page 4 of 6 Page 31 of 83 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-15-PM 16.6120.7 Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dated August 15, 2008 33. The volumes at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 42: • Franklin Street/Grinder Drive: EBT (AM) • Main Street/I-15 NB ramps: EBT, WBT, WBR and NBR Checked and revised. Appendix P, 2040 Alternative 5A 34. The lane geometries at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 44: • Diamond Drive/Lakeshores Drive: EBT and WB • Grape Street/I-15 NB ramps: SBL. • Railroad Canyon Road/Summerhill Drive: NBT and SBT • Diamond Canyon Road/Auto Center Drive: EBT, WBT, NBT, and SBL Checked and revised. 35. The volumes at the following intersections do not match with that shown in Exhibit 45: • Grape Street/1-15 NB ramps: PM peak • Railroad Canyon Road/1-15 SB ramps: WBT Checked and revised. Appendix B, Year 2007 HCM Calculations Existing 36. Page 32, Year 2040 Traffic Volumes: It states that NCHRP 255 worksheets are included in Appendix B. There is no such worksheet in the Appendix. Will include worksheets. 37. The peak hour factor (PHF) can be calculated from the AM and PM Peak-Hour volume data in Appendix A. Will calculate PHF and incorporate into SYNCRO analysis. 38. The percentage of heavy vehicles can be calculated from the data in Appendix A. Will calculate percent of trucks and incorporate into SYNCRO analysis. 39. At the intersection of Franklin Street and Auto Center Drive (Alternative 1 No-Build) - The left turn phase must be coded as a protected phase in the Synchro analysis. See previous Operations comment no. 20. Will re-check and revise. 40. At the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and NB ramp - The lane configuration in the SYNCHRO file for the NB direction does not match with that shown in Exhibit 5 Alternative 1. See previous Operations comment no. 21. Will re-check and revise. 41. At the intersection of Diamond Drive and Auto Center Drive - The lane configuration in the SYNCHRO file for the EBL for Alternative 1 do not match with that shown in Exhibit 5. See previous Operations comment no. 23. Will re-check and revise. ELECTRICAL OPERATIONS General 42. The traffic analyses (Synchro) must be accurate because they are used for choosing alternatives. Because a task is "time-consuming" (reversing phasing, showing pedestrian phases) is not a justifiable reason for the preparer of the report to not do that task. OK, time-cards received and will incorporate into Synchro analysis. 43. The signal timing parameters that are needed (walk, flashing don't walk, yellow, all-red) can be measured in the field. OK, pedestrian parameters will be measured and incorporated. 44. Use Phase 2 and 6 for Eastbound (EB) and Westbound (WB). See previous comment no. 26. Phase 2 (eastbound) and Phase 6 (westbound) is used at SB and NB intersections with Railroad Page 5 of 6 Page 32 of 83 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-15-PM 16.6120.7 Traffic Impact Analysis Review Dated August 15, 2008 Canyon Road. See attached phase diagrams. 45. Show existing Pedestrian phases. See previous comment no. 31. OK, pedestrian phases will be shown. FORECASTING BRANCH General VOW ~ 46. Caltrans recognizes the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) traffic model. As noted on page 31 of 87 of this report, traffic volume data for general plan (GP) build out conditions are based on forecasts from the RCIP model, an explanation of how the RCIP baseline year input and outputs should be included in the report or how the 25-30 year forecast is derived. _ e Fo C,n ti~v eF Bi1Sd5WNE ^°°o Will incorporate additional explanation into report." oeV4"417"v °v~ 2ck~7 ev%, vrT 47. Based on review of year 2040 AM Peak Hour Volumes for proposed Alternatives, volumes appear contrastingly different from year 2040 PM Peak Hour. Please correct. For example, year 2040 PM Peak Hour Volumes at 1-15 Southbound (Bundy Canyon Road to Railroad Canyon Road) are depicted at 12,164 VPH, I-15 Northbound (Railroad Canyon Road to Bundy Canyon road) should be within close range of 12,164 to reflect AM DHV movement on Interstate Route 15, instead 5,190 VPH are depicted. Agree, will adjust AM and PM directional splits. 48. Although opening-year traffic volumes and analysis are optional, please be advised that FHWA may require this analysis at a later stage of the project. Agree, the Opening Year Analysis will be performed for the Project Approval/Environmental Clearance phase of the project for all viable alternatives. Currently assuming that Opening Year will be Year 2016. Low ptrw715M c &Ar M f 1"t b^OVA-1 Page 6 of 6 Page 33 of 83 r a N M a, a, a 0 N ~I R O R r d R Y Q, O O N N T R C 0 s v c T N m T R G Q R 0 N r N R R ~La o o N co U G 7 TT O L 1.1.. OD ~ Z . I~VW W as ll!uaouauanS IS-4deaE) dwe2i 8N `)TTT r N ~ dwe~j 8S zL T f II as joluoo o}ny s> p buiseo Z ~ J(] oaoys8Nej uoisslW L c O H d XW E ip C a `I O d O N O N e Page 34 of 83 ry a U T N Y a ai 0 v 0 N T 9 G m r d V R C L d Q 0 0 N N .N T m C Q O L s v c T uJ 'm N T A C a O A L H 9 O L r N ~ d N N L ~a O) C e d iC L c b N ~ N V e Page 35 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project Alternative Reduction Workshop Meeting 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA OA4400 SUBJECT: Alternative Reduction Results File: 1-15/Railroad Cyn Rd DATE OF MEETING: September 24, 2008 @ 2:45 PM LOCATION: Caltrans Conference Room on 11'h Floor ATTENDEES: NAME FIRM/DEPARTMENT Jon Bumps Caltrans Design (Workshop Participant/Member) Ahmed Ghonim Caltrans Design (Workshop Participant/Member) Thomas Tu Caltrans Operations (Workshop Participant/Member) Dat Wong Caltrans Design (Workshop Participant/Member) James Camarillo Caltrans Planning (Workshop Participant/Member) Kerrie Hudson Caltrans Environmental (Workshop Participant/Member) Ed Basubas City of Lake Elsinore (Workshop Participant/Member) Luis Betancourt Caltrans Deputy District Director - Design Brian Frazier Caltrans Project Development Reviewer/Geometric Reviewer Mark Pertile Caltrans Design Jason Bennecke Caltrans Project Management Tracy Escobedo Caltrans Project Management Ken Seumalo City of Lake Elsinore Sal Chavez SC Engineering cc: All Attendees All PDT Members Project File: 66 Attachments: Alternative 3B, 4B, 5B, and New Alternative Item Discussion Action 1. Introduction Everyone introduced themselves. 2. Overview Mr. Jon Bumps stated that workshop team members consisted of individuals from design, traffic operations, environmental and planning. Mr. Bumps gave an overview of all of the previously investigated alternatives. There were a total of 6 alternatives that were divided into four scenarios A, B, C, and D. Each scenario is described below: • Scenario A - This scenario assumes that there will be improvements ONLY at the I- 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange (IC). • Scenario B - This scenario assumes that there will be improvements at the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road IC and a new interchange at existing Franklin Street at 1-15 overcrossing (OC). At the request of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it was recommended that the new interchange be relocated approximately 0.1 mile north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing location. Thereby maximizing the interchange distance between Railroad Canyon Road and the new interchange, but still maintaining the minimum interchange spacing between Main Street and the new interchange. • Scenario C - This scenario assumes that there will be improvements at the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road IC and a new overcrossing at Malaga Road at 1-15. • Scenario D - This scenario assumes that there will be improvements at the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road IC, a new interchange at Franklin Street at 1-15, and an overcrossing at Malaga Road at 1-15. Page 36 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project Alternative Reduction Workshop Meeting 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA OA4400 September 24, 2008 Each of the Alternatives is described below: 1. Alternative 1 - No Built Alternative 2. Alternative 2A (Diamond IC) 3. Alternative 2B (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC 4. Alternative 2C (Diamond IC) w/ Malaga Road OC 5. Alternative 2D (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC 6. Alternative 3A (Hook Ramps to Grape St) 7. Alternative 3B (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC 8. Alternative 3C (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Malaga Road OC 9. Alternative 3D (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC 10. Alternative 4A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) 11. Alternative 4B (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC 12. Alternative 4C (Hook Ramps to Grape SUCasino Dr) w/ Malaga Road OC 13. Alternative 4D (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin St IC & Malaga Rd OC 14. Alternative 5A (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) 15. Alternative 5B (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC 16. Alternative 5C (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Malaga Rd OC 17. Alternative 5D (Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC & Malaga Rd OC 18. Alternative 6A (Single Point IC) 19. Alternative 6B (Single Point IC) w/ Franklin Street IC 20. Alternative 6C (Single Point IC) w/ Malaga Road OC 21. Alternative 6D (Single Point IC) w/ Franklin St IC and Malaga Road OC 3. Alternative Reduction Workshop Results The workshop members identified the problems at the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road IC Project: Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Problems 1. Too much traffic on Railroad Canyon Road. 2. Too many short segments. 3. Too many moves. 4. No alternative routes. 5. Ramps are congested. 6. Inadequate storage (left/right turns). The workshop members identified the goals of the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road IC Project: Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Goals 1. No back up on ramps (NB On, SB-On). 2. Maintain/improve freeway Level of Service (LOS). 3. Reduce Local Road Congestion. 4. Improve local circulation. 5. Improve local LOS. 6. Reduce local accidents. 7. Remove close intersection spacing. 8. Allow for 1-15 Widening. 9. Stay within funding constraints. Page 37 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project Alternative Reduction Workshop Meeting 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 --E-A-0A4406- - September 24, 2008 New Hybrid Alternative (See New Alternative Attachment) The workshop member's brain-stormed potential solutions to solve the Project Problems identified at the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project, while achieving the Project Goals. The new hybrid alternative consisted of., Improvements at Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area > New northbound (NB) Hook Ramps to Grape Street between the Shopping Center driveways, this would provide more storage distance with the Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street intersection. > Realign Grape Street (into the Shopping Center) to provide adequate distance between freeway and the new NB Hook Ramps to Grape Street. > Remove the existing SB Exit and Entrance Ramps from Railroad Canyon Road. > New southbound (SB) Hook Entrance Ramp from Auto Center Drive. > New SB Entrance Ramp from Casino Road (at Malaga Road intersection). > New Street connecting Auto Center Drive and Lakeshore Drive (opposite the new SB Entrance Ramp). > Realign Lakeshore Drive-Mission Trail approximately 200 feet west (providing additional storage on Railroad Canyon Road). Improvements at Franklin Street Area > Construct a new interchange (3/4 diamond configuration) approximately 500 to 1000 feet north of the existing Franklin Street overcrossing. > Connect/extend Auto Center Drive opposite the new SB Exit Ramp. > Keep the existing Franklin Street overcrossing. > Connectlextend Franklin Street to Main Street. > Connectlextend Camino Del Norte-Grunder Drive from Main Street to Canyon Estates Drive. Modified Alternatives Alternative 3B (Hook Ramps to Grape St) and Alternative 4B (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) with the Franklin Street IC - The workshop group recommended the following revisions to the two alternatives: > Realign the new northbound (NB) Hook Ramps to Grape Street between the Shopping Center driveways, this would provide more storage distance with the Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street intersection. > Realign Grape Street (into the Shopping Center) to provide adequate distance between freeway and the new NB Hook Ramps to Grape Street. Alternative 5B (Hook Ramps to Grape St and Auto Center Drive) with the Franklin Street IC - The workshop group recommended the following revisions to the two alternatives: > Realign the new northbound (NB) Hook Ramps to Grape Street between the Shopping Center driveways, this would provide more storage distance with the Railroad Canyon Road/Grape Street intersection. Page 38 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project Alternative Reduction Workshop Meeting 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 _EA OA4400 - September 24, 2008 Realign Grape Street (into the Shopping Center) to provide adequate distance between freeway and the new NB Hook Ramps to Grape Street. New southbound (SB) Hook Ramps to Auto Center Drive, parallel to the San Jacinto River. 4. Review of All Alternatives The workshop group rated all of the alternatives: Problem Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 New Alt. 1 No Some Some Some No More 2 No 1 2 2 2 3(4) 3 No 1 2 2 1 3(4) 4 Yes with Franklin Interchange 5 No No some Some No Some 6 No No Some Some No Better Staging Good Good (Rev) Good Good Bad Good RIW Impacts Low Medium Medium+ Medium+2 Low High 5. Recommendations The workshop team rated and reviewed the merits of each alternative in solving the problems identified at the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road IC. The workshop team recommended to discard all alternatives with the exception of.• Alternative 3B. with_recommend_ed revisions to the NB ramps and Grape Street. • Alternative 4B, with recommended revisions to the NB ramps and Grape Street. • Alternative 5B, with recommended revisions to the NB ramps. Grape Street and SB Hook Ramps to Auto Center Drive. • New Alternative as described above. 6. Open Discussion Caltrans Headquarters was concerned about having an "isolated SB ramp" for the new alternative at the intersection of Casino Road-Malaga Road intersection. FHWA may not support an "isolated ramp". Caltrans Headquarters recommended for all alternatives that the new NB ramps be located between the two shopping center driveways. Ramps can only be located opposite public roads. For the new alternative, the City was concerned about the Right of Way Impacts related to the realignment of Mission Trail Drive-Lakeshore Drive and the environmental constraints of the new southbound hook ramp from Auto Center Drive and the new road connecting Auto Center Drive and Lakeshore Drive. For the northbound ramps for all alternatives, the City was concerned about the Right of Way impacts related to the realignment of Grape Street. Page 39 of 83 2 11 t 0 1 4 1 i ~ = 9 .x III I I C Y ; I IN r 4 ~ i. d a c t 4460 !1: 41 L S ull 1- ~f n L" zz ~ ,t~ J6 z I'~ol f'/ j 0a 0 KZ J h /y W d Y Page 40 of 83 o ! 1 ~ilo i 3 p; . i J 911© !ffffs 4 31 I I r , ~ 'yi r ~s ( W _ s W O CO) a I ) zQ YYY/~ r Q z Wm ".1 I.- elj mz J m _ fl fr Page 41 of 83 i o ' ' 0e7 w J s I: f ~ , I l L s /a e n r 7 I.:.. /r ~f~ If wm CO W W i 5 Za a r z W m (7 ccz m a R s w~Mr`y Page 42 of 83 W i e f. ig t t~79~3 - o e ~ c = ~ O Z O W O O Z si ~ p < "d O J p 6 O 0 < W LL O A W F LL J ¢ Z O W Z W x Z 3 2 £ x Bpi fiI fi 2 o ~ S W ¢ t O ¢ ~ x W a f , pY Z ?6 V fJ _ O ryi Wr ~ _ Z¢ < 00 ¢ < O¢ Z O W O WW OW W WO ~ W= X3 2< J ! All t 1 OY qJ •i~ #d 4¢ 00 fit.. 44 r < p Page 43 of 83 U b L'' 'cd t1 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT s' Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting -#20 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 November 5, 2008 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues O FHWA Meeting of October 29, 2008 > New Franklin Street IC approximately 0.2 miles north of existing Franklin Street OC. > Eliminate Existing Northbound Diagonal Entrance Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. > Eliminate Existing Southbound Diagonal Exit Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. > New Interchange Spacing (Alternative 3 is best IC spacing). > New Connection Report no Modified Access Report required is Diagonal Ramps Eliminated. ❑O Alternative Reduction Workshop > Alternative 2 (NB Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Diamond Ramps) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 3 (NB Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Hook Ramps to Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Alternative 4 (NB Hook Ramps to Grape SUSB Hook Ramps to Auto Center Drive) w/ Franklin Street IC ❑O Traffic Impact Analysis > Re-Submittal to Caltrans ✓ November 7, 2008 ❑O Environmental -Mobilizing 577sk7 -rt,NeV 6115 > Community Impact Study > Floodplain Evaluation > Noise Study and NADAR > Cumulative Impact Study > Preliminary Geotechnical Report > Cultural Resource Assessment > Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Growth Inducing Study 2. Open Period/Discussion ® Design Cooperative Agreement n/zc-/zep$ ❑D Project Schedule - Update Open Discussion > Visual Impact Study > Air Quality Analysis > Paleontological Resources > Draft Relocation Impact Report > Water Quality Report > Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) > Biological (Natural Environmental Study) 3. Next Meeting -December 3, 2008 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 ten? aes w "0471°$ Page 44 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road 08-RIV-I5-PM 16.5/20.1 EA OA4400 Interchange Spacing Existing and Alternative 1 Locaiton Station IC Spacing (Miles) 1-15/Main Street 1107+08 1.1 1-15/Franklin Street 1048+47 0.7 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road 1012+92 Alternative 2 Locaiton Station IC Spacing (Miles) 1-15/Main Street 1107+08 0.9 1-15/Franklin Street 1060+08 0.9 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road 1012+92 Alternative 3 Locaiton Station IC Spacing (Miles) 1-15/Main Street 1107+08 0.9 1-15/Franklin Street 1060+08 1.0 1-15/Railroad Canyon Rd-Grape St-Casino Rd 1005+14 Alternative 4 Locaiton Station IC Spacing (Miles) 1-15/Main Street 1107+08 0.9 1-15/Franklin Street 1060+08 1 0.7 I-15/Railroad Canyon Rd-Grape St-Auto Center Dr 1022+34 Page 45 of 83 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT FHWA Meeting AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 921 464 West 4'h Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 November 12, 2008 @ 10:00 AM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑O Previous Alternatives Investigated (Value Analysis/PDT) 4©rf SP^ fAy > Alternative 1 (No Built) > Alternative 2a (Diamond IC) > Alternative 2b (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 2c (Diamond IC) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 2d (Diamond IC) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC > Alternative 3a (Hook Ramps to Grape St) > Alternative 3b (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 3c (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 3d (Hook Ramps to Grape St) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC > Alternative 4a (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) > Alternative 4b (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 4c (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 4d (Hook Ramps to Grape St/Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC & Malaga Road OC > Alternative 5a (Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) > Alternative 5b (Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 5c (Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 5d (Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Loop to Railroad Cyn Rd) w/ Franklin St IC & Malaga Rd OC > Alternative 6b (Single Point IC) > Alternative 6b (Single Point IC) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 6c (Single Point IC) w/ Malaga Road OC > Alternative 6d (Single Point IC) w/ Malaga Road OC & Malaga Road OC ❑x Alternative Reduction Workshop/FHWA Meetings > Alternative 2 (NB Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Diamond Ramps) w/ Franklin Street IC > Alternative 3 (NB Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Hook Ramps to Casino Dr) w/ Franklin Street IC (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Alternative 4 (NB Hook Ramps to Grape SVSB Hook Ramps to Auto Center Drive) w/ Franklin Street IC 2. Open Period/Discussion Page 46 1. Camino Del Norte from - Franklin Street to Main Street _ 66 00e , - 00400 T ~4Y qy 4e40 4 0 i - 1 o~ d c >m A - 33333 PROJECT LOCATION 2. Connect Auto Center Drive to s s Main Street Q Ha I Y ' J4 3 i sit- ~ i ~ lY R. a a rwr ~ Location Map Interstate Route 15 - 08-RIV-I5-PM16.3121.0 - Frontage Road improvements within the Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area EA OA4400 City of Lake Elsinore N. Scale Page 47 of 83 ~ v 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #22 Geometric Approval Drawing Focus Meeting AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA. OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West e Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 December 3, 2008 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues x❑ FHWA Field Meeting of November 13, 2008 > New Franklin Street IC approximately 0.2 miles north of existing Franklin Street OC. > Eliminate Existing Northbound Diagonal Entrance Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. > Eliminate Existing Southbound Diagonal Exit Ramp at Railroad Canyon Road. > New Interchange Spacing (Alternative 3 is best IC spacing). > New Connection Report (Franklin Avenue IC). > No Modified Access Report (Railroad Cyn Rd IC). O Alternatives/Pteliminary Construction Cost > Alternative 2 - $47,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $51,500,000 ~~-UTC<7.6a1L> -FAD,GP3r^x,ms`s-~ (Locally Preferred Alternative) ac„Yw QF,Drtr ) > Alternative 4 - $68,500,000 (/taw, tWV' Imp, A-'011-pro SPAZWi') " GOMred a D1/2aO9 POT µ4•L- ❑O Traffic Impact Analysis > Status Update ❑D Geometric Approval Drawings(GAD) -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Interstate Route 15 r rl x~ts Skd r7 c Go A-t + Northbound 5' to 8' Paved Median - 69',eWO Pm-emri.4 06314N "S pT7DA/ -SAF-mry, /cr17u1eE PRmTFCP > Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Area: + Railroad Canyon Road - No Issues + Casino Road SB Exit Ramp - No Issues + Casino Road SB Entrance Ramp - EC Superelevation (SE) Transitions Length and 1/3L & 2/3L (Near Casino Rd Intersection (IS)) + Grape Street NB Exit Ramp - Proposed SE Rate Proposed = 8% (Standard SE Rate = 12%) - R=200' - EC SE Transitions Length and 1/3L & 2/3L (At Grape St IS) + Grape Street NB Entrance Ramp - Proposed SE Rate Proposed = 10% (Standard SE Rate = 12%) - R=200' - BC SE Transitions Length and 1/3L & 2/3L (At Grape St IS) Page 48 of 83 a 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #22 Geometric Approval Drawing Focus Meeting AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 > Franklin Avenue Interchange Area: + Franklin Avenue - R=1,100'SE=9% + SB Exit Ramp - No Issues + SB Entrance Ramp - No Issues + NB Exit Ramp - No Issues + NB Entrance Ramp - No Issues O GAD Submittal Date - Decemher 22.2008 -~zhi/woe S(/~~~`EUe SugratT~A ❑x Environmental - Mobilizing #J,6 ®AF GGOfCea RD/! 10 -QAkJS Fog > Area of Potential Effect (APE) G.N srM ct12Ar . 2. Open Period/Discussion O Design Cooperative Agreement ❑x Project Schedule - Update ("rma) ❑O Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -January 7, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227? y ~r E 6Pi' T?"'t i f"t P - epoP .4ER.66'+a~'-uT w+-pR'rb -A ~ASk c~< <F a~Rea'"''e'vr "eras 6~a str~Eo Page 49 of 83 J M N C R J M Y d r Y ~ L Y Y C R J LL p 7 5 7 0 N T W ~d U R v ~ O p > d N ` r ~ Q 3 N N O (O O O C O C O O O O V b 0 O 0 O 0 O- O O O O C O O O N O N O O N O 0 O 0 O 0 ~ - O O O O O O O O O O M O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ N a„ y+ N N - - - - - - - - - N - N - - N - O - O - O - O - N N N N > > ~ > > d d ~ ' d d - d d ' q: ' d d ~ ? W ~ fn fn N ~ N N O t O ' O fn l00 (00 (°D W m N ~ N m c°O (OD W W ~ ~ N t°O O O N + 3+t N N N N O y y 0 o 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N N r? N O n o N M M M ~ - - - - - - - - O -O M N N O O - - M M w w w w J O. q . co o N ~ N ~ N ~ N a V o V N ( V N N o N 0 N 0 O) 0 W ° ° e t0 e (O o N 0 N 0 O) 0 O) ° ° e V o V 0 O 0 O 0 m 0 Ol y a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J M O N O N O E O O O A O N O O N O O N O O N N O N o - o - N - N - O - W - O - O O O - N - N - O - M - O - 0 - 0 - 0 - N N N J ~ ~ N N N t°O O O M N O O O OO M M (00 t00 m M N M M M M M m m N M N N 0 0 \f 9 ~ A a .9 0 co 0= 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c.- o o o 0 0o u~ .n o0 0 0 ~n in m M r r .n .n ~n ~n ro ro r r ~n ~n ~n .n M M C M M - - MM ~ - MM M M - ~ N N - N N - M M d J a Y O ~ O ~ o N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ o a o 0 0 0 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y a. V V N N 01 01 ~ ~ (O (p N N O M ~ ~ V V (O m O) m 0 0 0 0 o o O o m w m w m w m mw w m m w w m mw w m m w w m m w w m m w w m m w w m m W w M m W w M m W w M m W w M m a a W O O c o o v - n o °i O m oo co v ~ m n ~n v m r o o rn n 'n v 0- O 0- O " M W ~ ° ~ ` M CO ~ m M V N O O n N M r M W M n V ~ O n M OD ci N V 7 m M V M n V ' O M O O W M M O r O r ro M tp ~p ~O ap n ro r N 6 M O ap n V O i0 N M O r V n N V ~O + N ep t f0 V N r M ap t0 m c c M 0 m W v ' O o O N + t++1 M f O p W m n O m N ( O m + M N W (p W V + M f+0 W a+D + V + O O M M O M M M~ M O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O M M O N N o m p o 00 0 0 00 00 °0 00 0 o ° o N O ° N ° N M O N N M N N M N n a E 10 ~ a a n K n E E E c E m c m d K ~ a m W W E W w [2 m m ca (q m U) X C X G Z Z a a w w w w m m o o m Z m Z m m m m 0 0 - d K 2~' N d N d j c of ' (A N 65 ' U) Q O w co 0 o d d d G C_ N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N d N J ~ U U U LL li LL ti LL Page 50 of 83 N C L O M ia3 m s Q ~ u 2 u q YSE~ r D ~ ° N OC • C m O OC O T Y C N U ~ D 0 K CQ CC G Q Z U) W W F a a. N p U U W a. a Y 0 a d d .O a` ti d a. a a. a a a. M m ~ E QI N E 0 E o E W M a T N 00 U R CD 0 a` E 0 .a N d v d O a` E m .N.• m n M E Y N Q rv c c ` o O O o 0 w 0 O O o 0 w O O C :t 0 O O M C K W w N N W U N = Y °1 m m L d C c ~ 0 C O ~ 0 ° C°0 0 O O 0 °o O A am o N M 0 0 b V) C ~ - LL N N r W v` M tp ry M N V1 O p LL Z R o m U y > C Q c 4 U N E o 5 A 1' Q C Y ` 2 M LL Q 3 ° O 0 O ~ W oo 0 O N W 0 o 0 O N M G O p ~ ~ O ° t0 ~ ~ 0 O o tp r M N ~ V 4+ > C Q y ca c ti E » E iO K~ c 0 M W x m; a LL ° 0 ? o a w o ° ~ O ° 0 ? o v w M o p ° b O o b w 0° 0 r m i a N d 2 C Q L V « O b N N Q ~ L O N c ~ a ` O M LL 2 6 i~ N O O ° M ° Ys O O O N OJ f9 G ° O W ~ y~ O O o M M Ys O O A M N Vf O ~ V ~ V! z O f U K N z O U z o z 0 IW_- w H c O K y W W o U m r Q 3 O x 0 wo co O it a N m V W n o (L ~ 0) N a Page 51 of 83 d C71 a n z ~ ~a m~i S:U S. SIS-gS Is -1117 mm, tll~ d a sW 717: $ $ w.~~ 8 8_ ~ .a $ f1$ 'X 9$ n m 9 n s a a - S ~ 98 m ya ~ 4 ~DF Sy_3 ~a 3YGPg 43 F > a i3 cF Y A' = 3 _ ~ 3 S f~33 OE a 3 2 ~ ~ ~ 2 S 3m 1i il3 $ n$ vF4 3F 9~E $ SD 3 2~ ~Y~ g 344 ` i5 (3 ° ) z S 93 3 ~ z 9 ay CSz~.3 4g a4C E a C Cx a y n Mimi, a a a F C •L a°° 2P z°3z ? c - _ m HIS l B "lilt I . m :cEE cm£yo :B g °p s a " a _ g 8 n = e9 s a P -sv e • v o ~ a looms ~wi ♦ w~mo e~'mKm °o ~a ode ' i~'m Y° 3 - ° 5 ' ' . I 3 T5 3 ~35 535 55 5 53 5 5 3 3 555.. aN@'''~ a dam a-- e e ~~"'~N ~ 1 ~ ' ! a 1~~ a all a ~ ' :aaaaa as aaama 1 a a aa s a El a - og gm:gm m gmmmm a gmmm~•~ a:a m m n a ~ FF^a'FFFF F:,F 83FF 3F ° > FBSaa aB FSFFS`e FFSo~a88FF3~&~238 S ~ a 3 C : : g S. rVl QC~D:aN , gS:. fd r~S r~r~S~~n~Sr~ N~'~~:.. 5'N C~ GrSN ~N ' n 5 A ~ .l N@ £Z m SraSm °~~~m~G Y-'m Ma~..a Y .E a,am m°:~ SaV a:m e :S ~a u:~°u;- O m : mmmm mm a _ _ l D A~ 9 Ob O aw 3 m Dg X00 m B i r e . oQ 8 D z I ~I,. DI m . o D i O f o I D . x ~ I O DI J n ' 5 D _ - g a m f e . Sap O A D a < - Page 52 of 83 y m m ? oa °m a m W~ m m l0 8$ & 8$ [ g o HI n Snon a a 3 $o n a a 'o £m S ° EE~3 4^ -$zxx a° S $B E FF5 i 9 Y ~ MM 'Y tit °z y 2 r$ 5~.s @ t an aak 3s~'.~ E tm s d o a L y £ _ n ° I=-.. 3 M l p z z= _o - na = 2 ~a~36¢~ k 62 4ek d 3 ; E o -3 ~ £ ~y 3 03 I F Q3 s 3 n 3 ^ ~ a C o K a 3 y v z 8 's s p 3 s a g D e 3 v m b 3 I =m ^ ^ ^ V $ ~m v .1 N~ m ~ (¢gab' $ $ v I B 5 5'SS5 5 5 5 2° -5 5 3 5SE a y A @C p_°i~ @a NI ~.r C.l rl nl rVl rl pN r,. ~rl @~lJ Ul r~ "sN N C@ C@L~ $~C @$ N @ C@:2 NNY @P CN~N@ C G + p d C @ ` 3 n . + 3.°z $ £ £g£££ g! z a to aa aa _~Ct^C$ ' Ni a N N -Np N' "~N "NC1 i "1 N i MINI UM! ~ u @ L6 l C C M w- uv>> o . a d . c _ ! f 6 as°s °o ma Ada °mo ~ m m m n ^ ° 2y 3 ' m o ~ O . l a m o F ~ o e i ° . B u m . m ._.r..,.,., T-. J ° o Q a o S ~ a ° Lig a m °i °i ~r L ,e ~ o m ~ ° u z 0 _ o, s l e 0 m Ki - 2i... 2 Page 53 of 83 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #34 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4"' Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 January 6, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑D Preliminary Total Project Cost -Updating to be completed January 2010 > Alternative 2 - $50,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $54,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $31,000,000 Structures - $ 7,500,000 R/W - $ 10,000,000 (Pending R1W Data Sheet) Construction Cost - $48,500,000 Support Cost (Design. R/W. Construction) - $ 6.000 000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $54,500,000 ❑x Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Status Update - Caltrans Review 0 Conceptual FHWA Submittal to Regional Office > Follow Up - Submitted to FHWA in November 2009 ❑X Engineering Studies/Reports > See Attached Deliverable Log Environmental Technical Studies > See Attached Deliverable Log 2. Open Period/Discussion ❑X 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Coordination - No Conflicts > 10-Lane Freeway Compatibility > Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp (2-Lanes) > Storm Water Treatment BMPs - CIP Future Usage R/W Data Sheet- Needed by March 2010 ❑D R/W Service Estimate (by Caltrans) ❑x Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement ❑x Project Schedule - Update 0 Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -February 3, 2010 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 54 of 83 t -r 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting -#24 Aot' AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4h Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 February 4, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues O Traffic Impact Analysis > Caltrans Comments Received - December 23, 2008 i se > Re-submittal Date February 9, 2009 ' 1 bXAtcy PkEAt A4YJ A~7.. i ,rL/q-,x ❑x Alternatives/Preliminary Construction Cost > Alternative 2 - $47,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $51,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $28,400,000 Structures - $ 8,000,000 RAN - $ 9,600,000 Construction Cost - $46,000,000 Support Cost (Design, RM; Construction) - $ 6,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $52,000,000 > Alternative 4 - $68,500,000 i.tittGY':,..Fn- i6 r>d ~~a= F `7X1 Y" r?rfT f2 . y6F,vM- R6P ,.GcaTt= Cam; Ss~'r'r+ wr Ptsaa rF~~ ❑x Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package - Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Submittal Date - February 4, 2009 gFCQ _ rr£y co. wc7Y e . kx'T ~1 • 13 Copies of Project Information Sheet --'v • 13 Copies of GADS (1"=100') ooGlc„e c:7,rr° FHwq rR~G 6pR inr Lt,:~ i:7a/ • 13 Copies of Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 78-02 V b&AR • 13 Copies of Truck Turn Templates (STAA 60' Truck Turning Templates) • 12 Copies of Mandatory Design Exception • 12 Copies of Advisory Design Exception D Engineering Studies - Upcoming -Cava c ~c L 410164VAI. > Storm Water Data Report - Target Submittal Date: March 4, 2009 t, > Hydrology/Hydraulic (Drainage) Analysis -Target Submittal Date: March 16, 2009 VA) > Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Traget Submittal Date: May 1, 2009 > Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report - Target Submittal Date May 1, 2009 ~a k A > New Connection Report -,Target Submittal Date: 11 48r20B9- AffiL 6"2otl9 > Draft Project Report (DPR) -Target Submittal Date: June 1, 2009 O Environmental - Upcoming > Preliminary Area of Potential Effect (APE) > Environmental Technical Studies - Tentative Submital Date: June 1, 2009 P14510 PAT-A 4,v1.£E=7;0A,r ? 2. Open Period/Discussion O Project Schedule - Update ❑ Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting - March 4, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 7_I - P~fJ G i f 77S I. o ee." cr.'r ~1 tt) Page 55 of 83 dw'a y Z A `2 F` N,p a ~ G-NP e; ml f ; x ffi~,X tl mm_:~~ AN ';tl me ~m~ v. - 8 Pm E:~$~~ ~ z5 539~x.2x n o v @ o k.~ k aZ vg~4$ pp4~ vP '9 33Fa E 3,.3 -aE ;k RF ; R Y" 4F 8 g 8 s 3 3~ 3aaN3 043 0".3m 3 e4D 2 4 'E m34 C.~ C xC ¢ 3 3 R m~:8 3qY..~ i -2, aj3 x n gs g.6x3~c sAa ~3gSE m O C ; A g o 3 y.n y ^ y Sag£-3 $43 ":3 p S Da ~g 3 " 3 'my - Oq9 "6 ~.~.3a4g6 ...s ink a $ ° £&-=8Y ° a m ~d 3 F - _ ya c $ a s 3 E E a3,@ m S ea - C S_P S. S4 'F m 3 0 y O ' F g ` ~ a 3 F 5 m£ p y m_ 3 a s a 9 F e i g l; n am °a y yyyy m=2:~ y" y yF ~y Fz 3:y zF s ct oil c . @a 5'`aa S Q_e 55 A a Y ~@Y ~ ~ a55a ~..SS as 'e @i$- T a i a ~ • y a 2aa c om a ~ n Nd$$am n.as a ats I a 3$ f @ eat 1 3~ 3333iY3 3~ 533.3333333L33333 y~ 3Cf m'o 33~ 3"F$x~ ~i£ ~ 3 NCYr~a~~E a^1 p' m m yn 2, E CiY2 @ E$ @.a maamY a' -a aa l'3 a $m$$~ oa~$ ' e uii a - a 9 a , ooo u m mm m "epee oe,p mm m mom mmm mm ~R m m m v m m ~ m 3 a I~ n '~m x 2 ^ILIi, p( l~ 4 ~ 3 ~ Y ~ v a n n3 a ~ c , f ' omo OY S 3 ° gcs2 a~ ~ ~ .:i:a g oam e ~ °mS nu IJ I am _ S CN 6 m' S V j O ~ D, ~ O' D u ~p O . W 4 S I° u . O ~ $n Page 56 of 83 y n A chi Op a. S$ ed m g~~ s 3~~i ,mzi v~ gym. A T g ^ 8 8 S~ ~'S.N ax a s" -9' S a N S 8 ~ i ~p F ~3°3 §z° S ~ §3 'g ~ F°y?3 'O ~ ~zSxB °x y1 R5 e.$ad ?-~FY ~i pCm;S 3 z,. IV 9 dd ul~~ x xO F: $ pdn $'.q ^-'a`~£ 33.35 3 F 2d F.i~ 3d,j '-~d{ 2 SCR D 'a` Y2S g S`R d 3 <pF i~ ~ L^ o - 3 " i 3 3 c' S ~ ° F ' ~ z i ~ 3e$33$_F ~ ~ g3• g 23iD~ aR=_ an : 4s 3 8 ° O ~ ° S e- 8 _ Na n S 3 G ,q ^3 - m 3 ~ 33 a x 33 i F ° u't 3 ° 3 B F $ S 3. n Po Fi _ ~ m 3 a 3 ~ ro ° g_ a 3 £F~Q$ £ "££k £fF cl F£££ £ c, S c g p @NN 32..,N ~~'lY@ r~~~3'. ib@@cNPC-":Ne @ 1C a@z; 3@2 g NC ° ` . + I 4 333 343E 33;-3 33333:33 34333383 rf: rG 33 N~N,~N ~a rR~C~~~`J` r~ ~maA ^w't "S__,l@NS of@A~ C jA r@i.A @'c . i W p 3 W o"'.,m n w 3 ~ ~ ~ o n w P! ~ mdv ' b - - - O $ uo T kn ~n y~ . C O Y 6 ~ C ° oFm c o . ~e A N, y C o ~ a p. m p ~ _ _ t__. _ _ i l •i_ A l p_o F. 7 ~ l( i~ Y i f t J I.( ~ L e ~ o' to 'IV 0 n F O 0 ' - m O 1 V u ~ ~L C a^P L m j~J~i ' °°mu Page 57 of 83 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting -#25 ~f .tZ p7,p AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA. OA4400 Caltrans Conference Street Room 1227 464 West 4 40~C9 Fek 4T RrfK Oerf6.v San Bernardino, CA 92401 Pcl~rea0 (ACIF March 4, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues O Traffic Impact Analysis > Caltrans Comments Received - December 23, 2008 > Re-submittal Date March 3, 2009 '774 O Alternatives/Preliminary Construction Cost f 4AA G/A r rfAm > Alternative 2 - $47,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $51,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $28,400,000 Structures - $ 8,000,000 R/W - $ 9,600,000 Construction Cost - $461000.000 Support Cost (Design, R/W, Construction) - $ 6,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $52,000,000 -Aftematime 4 -$68,500,000 (mcVr- 4AMI1 I'mApke-M Aeve&) / Pp% rQcT£cT+t~✓ b o-S6D) Rd?G'4tP-6MV., Orf'rbM QC677r~r~s ~q ws"R✓@ OrJT.~ I x rn.cW6 C. °^r 4r~"t 4f'fr5 -ENV. Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package - Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Submittal Date - Caltrans Review Status • Project Information Sheet • GADs(1"=100')_C,,e-4Wc#7-7t/c *11AovAG,ptw-ewaT • Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 78-02 • Truck Turn Templates (STAA 60' Truck Turning Templates) • Mandatory Design Exception • Advisory Design Exception O Engineering Studies - Upcoming ~ ft¢ RGk 10 ? > Storm Water Data Report - Target Submittal Date: March 16, 2009 ? Hydroloy0/H draulic Drai~DAnalysis -Target Submittal Date: March 16, 2009 > Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Target Submittal Date: May 1, 2009 > Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report-Target Submittal Date May 1, 2009 > New Connection Report - Target Submittal Date: May 18, 2009 > Draft Project Report (DPR) -Target Submittal Date: March 23, 2009 O Environmental -Upcoming > Preliminary Area of Potential Effect (APE) > AEnvironmental Technical Studies - Tentative Submittal Date: June/July 1, 2009 7-/As✓, 7D~-"f~,, T 1W 141~4V AvY*kr- 2.-4"W&VF /*191 - le"P ¢ri er% X) L/ 2. Open Period/Discussion ❑x Project Schedule - Update ❑D Open Discussion r%4f Alm OE'06,V" OSVW r'a aoro? (.awl" 776Jr ezrcr, of 4e it R Q P:KA* .CdW y 3. Next Meeting - April 1, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 G,ar.C rse % - s/auaG- Page 58 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #26 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 0 Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 April 1, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑x Preliminary Total Project Cost - Updated > Alternative 2 - $48,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $52,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $28,900,000 Structures - $ 81000,000 RAN - $ 9,600,000 Construction Cost - $46,000,000 Support Cost (Design RAN Construction) $ 6,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $52,500,000 > Alternative 4 - $69,500,000 Traffic Impact Analysis > Status Update ❑D Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package - Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Caltrans Review Comments of March 18, 2009 Move Northbound Grape Street Ramps further north. Intersection Line of Sight Diagrams Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road - Sidewalk on both sides Focus Design Meeting - Week of April 6 or 13, 2009 Re-Submittal Date - April 27, 2008 x❑ Engineering Studies - Upcoming > Storm Water Data Report -Target Submittal Date: April 6, 2009 303(d) Water Body - Lake Elsinore / San Jacinto River if Temescal Canyon Creek ✓ Biofiltration Swales/Strips - 11 Locations ✓ Infiltration Basins - 4 Locations ✓ Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs) - 44 Locations > Local Hydraulic Study-Target Submittal Date: April 20, 2009 > Preliminary Geotechnical Report - Target Submittal Date: June 1, 2009 > Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report - Target Submittal Date June 1, 2009 > New Connection Report -Target Submittal Date: May 1, 2009 > Draft Project Report (DPR) -Target Submittal Date: May 1, 2009 ❑x Environmental - Upcoming > Environmental Technical Studies -Tentative Submittal Date: June/July 1, 2009 2. Open Period/Discussion 0 Project Schedule - Update x❑ Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting - May 6, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 59 of 83 N m m. ml m a. a j a. a': a a a a y~1 w w N' o w m- V N- ! m jp W J N: A: W N+ OI b p~ AI W N+ 0! J O~ N a' W' N: + N' m'.L m- N~ O b V N N A W Ni + O b: V'i. T N A W~ N! p SIN v d",. o~ O_ -'11A~~CnCnD- - - - - - - - - - - 0y~~.llnT~~~~~n „T non-In~On~ntiyd ''O N N N N S N N.O pp' O N.H W O) N NN b 0 N N O' N m P S O O O N N N F m. : s m F F Z '{'{n NN NNN j0 • OOC O O'•FO• bld DN ' uWi (Nli ~R P m m' ? d O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~y P N C D N N 0 0 0 0 0 0.~ 0 (O~ j.st 9 O. OO•.- y_b -O 'O ]I W~ m D m pl j PO m CJ. m- O T m W m N + A q N 0 Z' (°N O m r~ q Yr `I J P V. D Pr b r N Y a. r W N+ p O N N N pp.9 O O N ~y pn C N O O N O b' N O a T O N b m o c h a n O o 40 3 o m. at M _D. oZ < n S v.0 n 9 d S O D o n V I m O b pC C m C. m'm9C. 9 O m m -1 A A 31 G 9 Q P D~ O •y 9 0 m C O m O [2 9 P $`.O a m a m y m m n m n..v m m y m m.A ma y. o :m 6 x m ~..3 .P~ m 3 A H m o d °m c' N.n z o- 2d ~mn « m M m a o x o m_.~ m m^ °c o•Z.m m o m° ti < P-'. 0 3 v ,2 3 d m a a A d a n l< o o O-m o°a -T -1. P_-IP Q D N n 3 t3 ~.O 0.3 G 6i •PZ!. b O c mm D 3 9 y. Si' A D D S c O m y? m m°= 9 m m o a m m v_;y CI 'C' m -I P g y q D O . i m '0 2 3 C d CC 3 z o G' w ti 3 a m n 0 ° m` u d m a a m N° n P 2 3 m N» a m m ma u ~a n mm a- 9 b D: O o C°1 m e m F 3 m} m m m m n m n D A° n'.D m q Sq m F ~...o A w A'~ pD G.L a m:N m 9 N y 3 0 y O 0 ? r b 9 9 d m O N $ u 10 L NO < N< N 5•. N D y G m m -b .0 ° n< m H cn A° m » m 3 N w a '-m" HF ° c a o.E o£ ~o °'F am f o z~ m~ n _d y N 0 P N d O O O m A n m0 O 0 m 2.0 N y P m0 a m n m A u m S ~ a m m m'' m n A ~:o o D o ~ p ➢ - 3 3 to a zc = D G°.. m w 32 o ➢ OII d m O m O m m N 0 m0 d D d ~ w m d S ' D D m m J. _ m a j'g ? _ m O' Po } H m m m0 O a a° o d ~ u n w a 5 5 5 n$ n, m y n m m 8. m m m m n m m m m n n n. m a m o o c c m m c o 3 o z T 3 c m m 3. 3. •n n n n a n o n,n n cm m n o ~o n° cc m m c n o° .b a. u:N o pp .@ w w Nw Oww p pQ paw Np N@T.° N c'C' qL~"l ~Ca' m£mE b m- m O O O O: O b. O O. ~O b m M 10° N. tOO b 1° b f°': b 10 t0 N t0 V: N b b b b t00 b b O m a N O b 0- W w m 0 J. J J N:3 b N .N ~ R 0 N d w q m 0 N ry m:N 0 0 0 0 0 tl C C j '.o ~ ~,v Ne N N m w N m mm m m a mm m a+ m m ',N J A u E m__ b mo mZ' Z' m m au Q m °~_5 0 O O O O O O O O. m b. 0 N.. b. b N'.O b N... tOO:~ W N a 0 b 9 CO Cmj 3 b z 3 3 z" T T 3 3 w 0 °m m n mcm>>a a n n'aD -non c-. ma aaa w:za a' b ma. T N ~.N N a~ N e vp O Ny 1O3 _J b ~p m` b N P m~ 6: ~0 M O m ON.m d w P b. m~,. J.~ J O' N d O Q d O O cx ~ Q 0~ A » n S m ~ 1 c A~ ~ N C C~ ~ C r 0 e = 3 N w h 4 O S d b O of Page 60 of 83 a' 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #28 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4' Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 June 3, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 0 .GYi tuk~eC.'~` > Alternative 3 - $52,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) ~f Roadway - $28,900,000 0o-/ k7`- Structures - $ 8,000,000 RIW - $ 9,600,000 Construction Cost - $4H,500,000 AAA Lrr,E-g. Support Cost (Desion RNV Construction) - $ 6,000,000 , C~rrr9iAGrt W53 TOTAL PROJECT COST $52,500,000 ~ C®nsT7"ecT V/ Project Items/Issues ljzro4r ? 0 Preliminary Total Project Cost-Updated lr-AL'fd Ar 40' J-' > Alternative 2 - $48,500,000 > Altemative4-$69,500,000 rY G.a67'y4a1^f M-A'rNT 4 "Ae wAy 4AA6Eaaa*'_ -c rpc. Traffic Impact Analysis > Caltrans Comments dated April 15, 2009. > Queuing Analysis - NB Entrance Ramp (assume current alignment). > Re-Submittal Date (Includes Year 2014 and Queuing Analysis) June 8, 2009. (2=d %°'%T'-~'G Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package - Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Caltrans Review Comments of March 18, 2009 Aer Move Northbound Grape Street Ramps further north - May impact TIA NB Entrance Ramp Queuing Analysis. • Vertical Realignment of Franklin Street to provide 2% slope at crosswalk intersectionsrgrs ,:N qpA Franklin Street and Railroad Canyon Road - Sidewalk on both sides oe°--rv,> ' ,.ce'xPnnv :'cr=fir' Re-Submittal Date - June 29, 2008 to July 6, 2009 Engineering Studies - Upcoming > Storm Water Data Report - PANED Caltrans SW Review Comments May 11, 2009 Received • Status Update - Other Caltrans Comments Re-Submittal Date 2n1 Week of June > Local Hydraulic Study- Target Submittal Date: June 22, 2009 > Preliminary Geotechnical Report/Preliminary Material Report -Target Submittal Date: July 20, 2009 > Pavement Life Cvcle Cost Analysis (LCCA) - Target Submittal Date June 29, 2009 > Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report - Target Submittal Date July 20, 2009 > Bridge Advance Planning Studies (APS) - Target Submittal Date July 20, 2009 7-Ar' 0A-AA New Connection Report - Target Submittal Date: July 27, 2009 ~L tt-0 e FCI W.a) > Draft Project Report (DPR) - Target Submittal Date: July 27, 2009 N Environmental - Upcoming > Environmental Technical Studies AYF • Biological Focus Study - in Progress Tentative Submittal Date: August/September 2009 2. Open Period/Discussion Ox Project Schedule - Update ❑x Open Discussion Next Meeting -July 1, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 61 of 83 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #30 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 0 Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 August 5, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑X Preliminary Total Project Cost - Updated > Alternative 2 - $48,500,000 > Alternative 3-$52,500,000(Locally Preferred Alternative) ~i•~C9~~.~ oa Roadway - $30,500,000 l Structures - $ 7,500,000 ( "~b MIN - $ 9,600,000 f1445E" e""v?--o t3kr ~4e gf (Frr`e Construction Cost - $47,600,000 R.R. Support Cost (Design. R/W Construction) - S 6,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $53,600,000 ❑x Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Re-Submittal Date - August 13, 2009 Engineering Studies/Reports Study/Report Submittal Date Comment Traffic Impact Analysis CHA) August 10, 2009 Comments Received July 30, 2009 Storm Water Data Report-PA/ED August 10, 2009 Comments Received July 28, 2009 r /1?uy rft Location Hydraulic Study July 23, 2009 Currently Under Review Floodplain Evaluation Report August 12, 2009 No Impacts to San Jacinto River, minimial impacts to Wash "D" Water Quality Assessment August 12, 2009 Preliminary Geotechnical Report August 27, 2009 Preliminary Material Report August 27, 2009 Pavement We Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) August 27, 20119 Lg-i -8'k. L71MA.v S or 2-0 Y2 4 tFE Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report August 27, 2009 p~ o=«... of rePS1 Draft Project Report (DPR) - August 27, 2009 1' Submittal for Screen Check Only New Connection Report Sepember 2, 2009 NEu/ ivitfu,<yrn. Y' S`f y~ 0 '~HArrdL rF pck6rrpra1v EnFvironmentaTechnical Studies Study/Report Submittal Date Comment Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment October 7, 2009 NT A 4"07'r- W ,Grp LLEy'fr9N Draft Relocation Impact Report August 26, 2009 Visual Impact Analysis October 7, 2009 Noise Impact Study and NADIR October 9, 2009 Air Quality Analysis including TCWG Review November 18, 2009 Paleontology Study. September 7, 2009 Jurisdiction Delineation August 26, 2009 Natural Environmental Study (NES) September 30, 2009 Cultural Resources Study/APE October 7, 2009 Draft Initial Study/Environmental-Assessment Spring 2010 2. Open Period/Discussion 9 R/W Data Sheet ADcr'OkAk -,-P rtE/e697AACI-7 r Project Schedule - Update. - 5c4te)o ' T~ Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting - September 2, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 62 of 83 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #30 ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 0 Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 September 2, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Alternatives ❑X Alternative 2 9 Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) 2. Environmental Overview 3. Environmental Technical Studies X❑ Cultural Resources Update 0 Biological Resources Update ❑X Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment 4. Identify Caltrans Function Leads for other Technical Studies 5. Next Meeting - October 7, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 LroLy`r Por va:2.~ (sr?~ ~2 ri7z?tt-M,~nrFr' rM,4AVrS' ~S$. ? ~tii/ SuLT Page 63 of 83 I-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #30 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4th Street ~fC'C AGtGI 2.++~~aeA San Bernardino, CA 92401 October 7, 2009 @ 1:30 PM -,4 qµ[ Twe 1. Project Items/Issues - tw, 4"( To"'111111, 0 Preliminary Total Project Cost- Updated > Alternative 2 - $48,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $52,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $30,500,000 Structures - $ 7,500,000 RAN - $ 9,600,000 =117 V%0, 000 Construction Cost - $47,600,000 Support Cost (Desion. R/W. Construction) - ~ Q_r07 CAL TOTAL PROJECT COST $53,600,000 309 0 Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Under Caltrans Review 0 Conceptual FHWA Submittal to Regional Office/FHWA Meeting 0 Engineering Studies/Reports St Study/Report Submittal Date Comment Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) - Approved September 17, 2009 Storm Water Data Report-PA/ED October 15, 2009 Comments Received September 17, 2009 Preliminary Geotechnical Report November 16, 2009 Preliminary Material Report November 16, 2009 Pavement Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) December 1, 2009 Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report November 16, 2009 Bridge Advance Planning Studies (APS) December 1, 2009 Draft Project Report (DPR) % -October 15, 2009 1" Submittal for Screen Check Only New Connection Report October 16, 2009 1" Submittal for Screen Check Only. 0 Environmental Technical Studies Study/Report Submittal Date Comment Location Hydraulic Study > - October 26, 2009 < Comments Received August 27, 2009. Floodplain Evaluation Report November 2, 2009 No Impacts to San Jacinto River, minimal impacts to Wash "D" Water Quality Assessment October 13, 2009 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment December 12, 2009 Draft Relocation Impact Report October 23, 2009 Visual Impact Analysis December 4, 2009 Noise Impact Study and NADR December 21, 2009 Air Quality Analysis November 19, 2009 Paleontology Study October 23; 2009 Jurisdiction Delineation November 11, 2009 Natural Environmental Study (NES) November 11, 2009 Cultural Resources Study/APE October 30, 2009 Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Spring 2010 2. Open Period/Discussion ~ Y L. g' Z R/W Data Sheet - Preliminary R/at~ a Package Submitted. 0 Project Schedule - Update ~#b #Lr fp,«A,iO 0 Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -November 4, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 64 of 83 I-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #30 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 41h Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 November 4, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues 19 Preliminary Total Project Cost-Updated > Alternative 2 - $48,500,000 > Alternative 3 -$52,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $30,500,000 Structures - $ 7,500,000 Ryw - $ 9,600,000 Construction Cost - $47,600,000 Sunna7 Cost (Design RNY Construction) $ 6,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $53,600,000 Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package- Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Comments Received October 23 & 26, 2009 • ADE No. 5. Grape Street NB Entrance Superelevation-12 % (standard) vs. 6% to 8% (mandatory non-standard) • GAD No. 4. 2-Left Turns at Casino Rd SB Entrance Ramp • GAD No. 11. Interstate 1-15: Provide 3% cross slope. • GAD No. 21. 8 fool sidewalk on Franklin Street • GAD No. 18. 10 foot shoulder being utilized as auxiliary lane. • GAD No. 19. STA 1023+00 to STA 1027+25 existing shoulder. • GAD No. 38. HOV preferential lane at Franklin Street Entrance Ramps. • GAD No. 38. Use Auto Turn for truck turn templates. > Resubmitted - November 11, 2009 Conceptual FHWA Submittal to Regional Offrce/FHWA Meeting ❑x Engineering Studies/Reports Study/Report Submittal Date Comment Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Approved September 17, 2009 Stone Water Data Report-PA/ED Approved November 2009 Preliminary Geotechnical Report November 30, 2009 Preliminary Material Report November 30, 2009 Pavement Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) December 15, 2009 Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report December 15, 2009 Bridge Advance Planning Studies (APB) December 15, 2009 Drat[ Project Report (DPR) November 11, 2009 1a SubmiBal far Screen Check Only New Connection Report November 11, 2009 1. Submittal for Screen Check Only. ❑X Environmental Technical Studies StudytReport Submittal Date Comment Location Hydraulic Study November 30, 2009 Comments Received August 27, 2009. Floodplain Evaluation Report November 30, 2009 No Impacts to San Jacinto River, minimal impacts to Wash °D° Water Quality Assessment November 13, 2009 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment December 12, 2009 Draft Relocation Impact Report October 23, 2009 Visual Impact Analysis December 4, 2009 Noise Impact Study and NADR December 21, 2009 Air Quality Analysis including TCWG Review November 19,2009 Paleontology Study October 23, 2009 Jurisdiction Delineation November 11, 2009 Natural Environmental Study (NES) November 11, 2009 Cultural Resources Study/APE October 30, 2009 Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Spring 2010 2. Open Period/Discussion 0 R/W Data Sheet-Preliminary R/W Data Package Submitted ❑x Project Schedule- Update Open Discussion - Deliverable Log 3. Next Meeting -December 2, 2009 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 65 of 83 m C C C 7 N Y C d CE G O U 3 d .d 7 V N 93 0 N N f0 C Q O C d m y o ~ d ~ ~ O o O d' j N N O N a c °o. `m Q a O ` V " O o Q w U ° E ui 0 o ug c7 0 C w w~>a C ci ~y L r w D . O y y N ~ ` .a C; N ti y C w 4 0~ E 4 mcy i 3.c a `yy v iio~ 3 ' d 4a a`i v:aE m ww~ m ~ Q ~ w C y C y ro~ O" 1 ayi ° y w w « " p a 3~ ~ ~ v ` y ' via m ' d o+mda>ao ~y ~ 4 V 4C C q y O~«ti y G ~ w OB Z ~ h E« w O O D O« O i ~ C O ` " ~ O A OI a rs:; c y y C m O O ~ ys :;3 www , `o e p M« is m roro _ ocev«h~4 m ~aEia«`a C 4 O E' U O w~ C N y E W O O u ° C C ` 'J w w Y A V b a O .C w M G b S~ d y ro d W II ' m N 5 y v% w 4 L .q OC y« C w ~ 0 0 0 .w. C-w UO v ctX w c y Da o w m cg op b W p V .C o$ ` « C ~ w C q~~ C Q o R ` ~ 4Z w ~p ~ hU mU~ `a U a~ o i $ ul m R L O C 32 O tp w °w l6 a o O ~ N ~ , F w N d . d o 'O m E o m 00 O 00 w 0 d E m 0 ° w T y= n a s o L 3 w ~O 0 a O W o i/1 F N m U O L) N O. a w N > w a v c L a c O E v y O y O O2 O w E y ywj N O C C OI w C t0 w~"E a~ °-mmo r o4 3 j w C a a Ol Y~ d C y ~ ~ 10 E° N W O 2 9 y- o 3 `m N w y y m a c K L ° w m .a E '6 ca 0 s Q 'v ? V m N w 75 O w w 'X o .O. OI Y E 6 r I y C w y ° C N LL O M W U ro 4 N m d m U ??a Ez v. ' w E 'a v U > mp c _ nwycR 3m ~ d ~ m >w cE (7 d o my N .a i n s 9y~mE m._Ss ~ '.n y Sa ami d is a ma m > c . ' d c am crn o :e y do , . E ma 3: W w C C S o-rnE v ` < c oa c wn cs o mm m~ Z a m. (n w°w0 w N ~ m ma°3 wm c y y w m w y fwJ v ' o y > y y y U m 0 0 m a L U L O a' U y O. N N 0 C L N O O w O w a U« U v w y d d t d. w O C c E G Y J% w a r y w M O 0.2 m y c w w° a m m Z C O m OI v N U m R e N L UI ° o O w UI 4 1' y w a w w >'i -M L _ N m t_ U wU w j L L y wN d1- p p> a O d w Q> .O O I- d L 0 y w E CL o m N Z. p d ~p E ~(4 d N w Q °6 p p Q p c ❑ o. c m m d a 3 0 U Q in UU ED Q m A UG c ` J W m z 2o ° o Page 66 of 83 N w a E E N C d E E U m w 7 a V N 0 0 N N =a o ~ LL U m c O m O) ~ ~ 0 O ~ O O ~ > N ~ O N CL ¢n d Q a 0 6 ; O cv a E v O p W C7 p a° y « b 3 a a N a c a o 'O i h O ~ ~ d ~ N ~ d j 3 E N O p G ej b> . 1 ~ °m a o 3 L os a i c $ co^ a g Q d4" , n v'° a,:ey a s `m~E E aasyY t6 b qv a~w c a m p C k N N a 3ya a;« [C N R ~ G m m ro +y b a s « 3 c « vi b a s a C ¢ A of b a s _ m o N xi ,o c o =y E N a a ~ u E u, a " U E q L aR. ~ w y a !w. a a m ~p ` 'a m a tj y w C9 N 3 a b TI N h y N ~ > O C G b 1ti a O L C V b 'p ° y J ~ ~ a w~ 4 ~ 0 o a o b M ° ova j Ln + a t a a s C O w ~ ° t S a a O Q w . . R. a ~ e w y w y`3 , o . N ~aai°`mm m vaur rs3!^~ a aca Eb ogs vc c ro m a3 c o,u Ea Q a o3^. d x c t» rom« y w J U` oc`" « .Y rn ooawo C me ooa C ~ W b C . „ a^ O G C C N t .y N 3 'p "k v 3 N N N 'C m m ti b C N a « N + • N b C M J C ' a . : ' w. O q r`I AR y uE'C., afC'~. C m ~aaa ^ .p ~ « Qo ob v w'•- a C E b y 0 .N` 4 Q V 3 G £ y N of N l i1 D U U. Z TI 'C d MS a fy y ~ N N N t ~ G t` d C 'j b y N a O N m N 0 U y b e r. 'N Q 3 0 Q a o- N N N N Q W N ~ 3 Cai 2 W 0 'n a N ~ = b~ a c O a~ 0 0 4 v G O y p a ~ v ~ C ~ C x t C ~ O a d Q q, m g' OI C G O. O a ~ - 1 C UC`c 02t.oE-Ra R rC p ..ow ma « 0:row aU a 's cFia « N 4~ a y o . F, . Q a a N S° U a ~ m 4 C Iey° . a R Q U 0 'O ~ c c a o a `o N C O m c c a R a (n > a N N m N Y o m c C) a o 3 m a > v D O U U LL' V jT m N t N O R N R C N W O y G J d ? m a ¢ O N N a . C L C ~ U N O C ~ R o- a N U W a . m_ W m LL N C ~ O C -R r N R c7 v p t O C O ° m 'RO 10 N O y p N O U m U N m C R c y c R o c U N :c ° v .R0 R- m a l0 R ' s c .3 m 3 co a ` ° m v v m a o R + c c o m eo n 1 ~°n ~°n a a a v o m 0: c 0 3 o R 3 m d E C N d `O 2 - d C lL IL 2 N y R C « (p N a 10 U) a p O U O ° U R m J U -2 ' ° c m = p = p = o a w N w o a o a `m a c ~30 a Do <o cc we r w~ " d c 3 y m d 0 co E m O ° N w 0 L H a J a J L A C L O L" m 0_ m a J U R N t . ovAa~ dc3 (L m uo °o E`c ny a U.- 0 c a 3 C N J R L y a R V T p N O >i E L N E C w .O > > N O a 01 O C~ OI d d N~ L F- a O N ¢ R R~ m a w y V C p m C a V O m '0 N N N O ~ ~ J ~ N N N C r p j U O X 0 m w" ~ 'L-' X C lU N 6 N U O cM OI T y C -ai C > lp E ¢ R 0 G 0 0 O O 0 3 0 ~ N~a V.3 'rC N ' ` ~ C ~ ~ ° N. N r r" N U O c y N ~ .O a 'c m m c a N E m vL R m x N a1 E v 1O v y m 0_ c ZS w c > N x~. a«m'Raa m c m R R R :4:a 0 R 2` o y R o 2.2 a V 3 R .C ° R `L" ¢ LL A O O ` R 9 . m p1 019 U d L M.59 F• d 3 O F y y 0 3 a O 10 a a F• L a 0 E L F¢. a K a U F a LLn F v F¢ F E E o m a m Cl) N Z 0 N O N co 8 N C U = N C 2~ N C~ N c K m c p c c - O c C p C p= C p- _ ~ as O o O Q 0 A 0M.' Q A 0f2 Q x c9AW Q C O~c Q C x ORW R a U W Ii w LL m LL W IY RI l 1J U` m m z m N N Z to $ N N N N N N N N v m a Page 67 of 83 Cm E E 7 N N d E E O U d m v N 0 0 N N CR w Q ro c Q o O 2 c a m N m o m rn O ~ > N ~ O N a- n `w Q a 0 6 ~ m O U ¢p of O ¢(7O c R 3 ~ m c z 0 N Z y U N U R 3 C rn O~ O E D L ~ d Qa g V ~a O N w J w N` j~ y .R N C 0` O ? V .Q U R N W et ry 3 O q w ~ } V p A w E eoa y x N Q y ry N F M O m E a U O U ~ a m - N 9 O C ~ m yj 5m ` m:: O ~U'm6 o L N N N w N d L C L N -0 R O ~ f6 N .Q N OI C ~p0 dU RUN U R d N N S m m o c - d a _ y N Q ~ cm ~ R N V d C C N E C L N o° j v m R m D U c c m R E T Y L U C rn V m R y c p E A c_ E o o m d LL- a L ''K 3 U o R J w E R . v et Y 3 N O O N T j F, d N R L C V O O w O N N U d = c m O m y 2 0 L S +L+ w _ N U roc, m ' - R c5 C m R~ O R ' ' C m d N N Y c M- J p N L r T U O C 0 C C O m > R = C E 0 a a p {Vp C N E N C T E m 3 m j R N R Q c U m i m ~ w a ~ a ~ ~ u ' R p m J m e O N A m E N N m 9 9 ` > . > m r 1 m CL 0 aENm m rn ad m c v m F- E as >J 2~ S r G Z ao M rn M Page 68 of 83 m a L N E E C C w E E O U w 7 a co U N 0 a C R O ~ ~ m rn <o ~ 0 C O. c N n U > a ~aa ~ooo 00 ~ O N o of ~ U t N o w 0 0 °v N 0 ) : ~ U ° w 75 o _ Q Q LL O o a °ro~ o 0 N a d w P ~ w" m >w c ¢ C. U cx N N y N q~ R O d N V ~ i o 3 o H E m E 3 0 i o ° c 3`° 3`° oorou 3R 3R 3 m o o aa?w o o U O C O y o ti v v oaf d m r N ,Q N "O` 4 N w R w° w ° 3 w e w e ¢ c« ¢ y w e m e w w a ~a D m R'm m as o ' o a ' ` a° ' °N ~ 'S v ' a te ; a'a ro y ;aw R ° m'a n'a` o d a$ a.°.~ ° d y° a ~ wm w a a O i a+ c i d G y N y Ow 3 N-M a d y d y b 5 X d d o a ~ro CRN t! -M -M ¢ aro CR O i zc IX z z m ~ w y N L ~ w w d ° R w . L ~ L R t L N N « y R 7 N c R T > w (O R o ~ «O C w R ° C Q O C ~Y NO w ° J ° o w w a o E2 o o a w °m _ ' c ° o- O C O :0. V1 ~ W O > O a - C N o c ~ w w d l ~ l O) V O O N O N p. C p~ 0 O O ; f, . O 3 N R R -O C L N ~ t R r a x N w N O R 'CO N O w O - R R R W E C U w C w UI 0 O w « (O w N w- 7 C O OI 2 .2 c p~ 0 C w R L L l c E «>`w w . 'N wL V N N m t f/7 C N w Ol C ~O R w 3= r ` m j C -D5 A N -6.2 O O N a C w O. w N « 0 O R U N V > ` R = LL J C O N O C N N a w O R W U " d . . a N 'y W N y U A N LL =O O V O N J .2 0 w 0 D. E '>w sU Lw w 2,0- °-"o c C=-' 0 0 Uv U w a , J C a N Mg N -O N m 02 w v ° o L.w. M ui 'o C E b w cd 'o _ m m 0 R x. a « C N r, 0 c O t - v . M- C O ~ « w FT °R mU OI O r NRO. O - wO.: = mca L -O OR ONim . roZ E 0 0 °00M c ca~~ ao E a-@ ° 'R c m o o w- N o 2 C U C ° CO C « w 0 O - G R L 0 0 m r O N R O C ° -0 O N c c C c R N ~O O O N M- Ca j w N 4i D Q - C T U A7 C r w w N O- O i0 w w N V E c w N k w Y ' O p ° C O 0 7E L L w LE w O w ~~.0 w c ° O N "wo O. R >3 C 4 C CD w ° - ate V '0 w-2 -w r a E~ .6 Y R V U c T R 0 L l0 c p R O r N N N p O ° vi o a w R w E v o -O R d O 6 H o O o„ r u. `o x w w 0 - w D E 3 R '6 O) mRF E z wEo v m w w ca w > Bodo rn w w N o S U W :a w _L.. m d c S w a 0 N a O O c R> N 0 C ao R~ :0 N , n . RL L `1 w w w N r O w R f N K a L U a. L U J 0 L L L O w a X W O A w w V n w s U F- N U H N w U F- U d w rn 'a o !q Z m R d c o o w ~ O v7 r m ~ w c ~ a ~ :o a ~ ~ w ~ w R R ' a w x x x x a 0) d d R a a rn w w w w a in ° Z c N M v .n c° FT M m d 1 a A 0 U m N Q E c m U Page 69 of 83 1-151RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #33 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4'" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 December 2, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues Preliminary Total Project Cost -Updating to be completed January 2010 > Alternative 2 - $48,500,000 > Alternative 3 - $52,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $30,500,000 'Structures - $ 7,500,000 R4V - $ 9,600,000 Construction Cost - $47,600,000. Support Cost (Deslon. R/W Construction) - $ 6,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $53,600,000 ❑X Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Resubmitted - November 24, 2009 Z Conceptual FHWA Submittal to Regional Ofrce ❑x Engineering Studies/Reports > See Attached Deliverable Log 0 Environmental Technical Studies > See Attached Deliverable Log 2. Open Period/Discussion RAN Data Sheet- Needed by March 2010 ❑X R/W Service Estimate (by Caltrans) Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement x❑. Project Schedule - Update 0 Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -January 2, 2010 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 70 of 83 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #34 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 January 6, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues 21 Preliminary Total Project Cost -Updating to be completed January 2010 Alternative 2 - $50,500,000 Alternative 3 - $54,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $31,000,000 Structures - $ 7,500,000 RIW - $ 10,000,000 (Pending R/W Data Sheet) Construction Cost - $48,500,000 Support Cost (Design. R/W. Construction) - $ 6.000.000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $54,500,000 ❑x Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Status. Update - CaltransReview Conceptual FHWA Submittal to Regional Office > Follow Up - Submitted to FHWA in November 2009 ❑x Engineering Studies/Reports > See Attached Deliverable Log 0 Environmental Technical Studies > See Attached Deliverable Log 2. Open Period/Discussion E9 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Coordination -No Conflicts > 10-Lane Freeway Compatibility > Southbound Main Street Entrance Ramp (2-Lanes) > Storm Water Treatment BMPs - CIP Future Usage ❑x R/W Data Sheet-Needed by March 2010 R/W Service Estimate (by Caltrans) Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement ❑x Project Schedule - Update Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -February 3, 2010 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 71 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 34 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange and Franklin Street Interchange Reconstruct interchange and New Interchange EA OA4400 SUBJECT: PDT Meeting No. 34 File: DATE OF MEETING: January 6, 2010 @ 1:30 PM LOCATION: Caltrans Conference Room 1227 ATTENDEES: NAME Jason Bennecke Mahmuda Akhter Tracy Escobedo Eddie Castaneda Gary Jones Rebecca Guirado Roy King John Stanton Sal Chavez Chris Del Ross-Risher cc: All Attendees FIRM/DEPARTMENT Caltrans Project Management Caltrans Design Oversight Caltrans Project Management Caltrans Environmental Oversight Caltrans Environmental Cultural Caltrans Right of Way Caltrans Hydraulics Caltrans Landscaping SC Engineering LSA All PDT Members Attachments: Agenda, Deliverable Log, and Sign-In Sheet 1-15/Railroad Cyn Rd TELEPHONE 909-556-8852 909-383-8345 951-203-4547 909383-4167 909-383-7505 909-383-4737 909-383-4555 909-383-6256 760-955-7712 951-781-9310 Project File: 66 LL@m 1. Project Items/Issues Preliminary Total Project Cost - Updating to be completed January 2010 SC Engineering reported the following total project cost update: Alternative 2 total project cost is $48,000,000 and includes project support cost. Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) total project cost is: Roadway - $31,000,000 Structures - $ 7,650,000 R/W - $ 10,000,000 (Pending R/W Data Sheet) Construction Cost - $48,650,000 Support Cost (Design. R/W. Construction) - S 6.350 000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $55,000,000 Geometric Approval Drawings (GADs) Package - Alternative 3 Action Caltrans reported that the GADs package review should be completed by tomorrow (January 7, 2010). Caltrans will transmit the comments to the City of Lake Elsinore/SC Engineering. A final GAD review meeting will be scheduled then the GADs can be submitted for approval, including the Mandatory and Advisory Design Fact Sheets. Caltrans Page 72 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 34 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA OA4400 January 6, 2010 Noise Impact Study and Noise Abatement Decision Report: The anticipated submittal date is January 14, 2010. Air Quality Study and Conformity Analysis: The Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) hearing postponed to December 23, 2009, upon approval determination and posting to Caltrans website, draft Airy Quality Study includes determination in AQ submittal. Anticipated submittal date of February 6, 2010. Paleontology Study: Awaiting Geotechnical Report to finalize draft Paleontology Study. The anticipated submittal date is January 15, 2010. Jurisdictional Delineation: The anticipated submittal date is January 14, 2010. Natural Environmental Study (NES): The anticipated submittal date is January 14, 2010. 1s' Draft Environmental Document (IS/EA): The anticipated submittal date is May 14, 2010. 2nd Draft Environmental Document (IS/EA): The anticipated submittal date is August 19, 2010. Draft Environmental Document (IS/EA) for Circulation: The anticipated submittal date is October 21, 2010. Draft Reponses to Comments: The anticipated submittal date is January 31, 2011. Draft Final IS/EA and ND/FONSI: The anticipated submittal date is April 7, 2011. Environmental Commitments Record: The anticipated submittal date is April 21, 2011. Revised Final IS/EA and ND/FONSI: The anticipated submittal date is June 10, 2011. Draft Reponses to Comments: The anticipated submittal date is January 31, 2011. 2. Open Period/Discussion 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Coordination: SC Engineering stated that at the coordination meeting of December 16, 2009, it was determined that no conflicts exist between the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Project (EA OA4400) and the 1-15/Corridor Project (EA OJ0800). The items discussed included: 1. The 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Project and new Franklin Street overcrossing will be an open-ended abutment and will accommodate a standard 10-lane freeway (1-HOV, 4- Mixed flow lanes in each direction), and will not conflict with the CIP project. 2. The 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Project includes realignment and widening of the southbound Main Street entrance ramp to 2 lanes (1-HOV lane, 1-Mixed Flow Lane). 3. The Storm Water Data Report (SWDR)-PA/ED for the 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Project has been approved. If authorized by the City of Lake Elsinore, SC Engineering will investigate over sizing our treatment BMP basins to accommodate future water quality volume (WQV) created by the CIP project. R(W Date Sheet: Caltrans is currently preparing the R/W data sheet. Caltrans has requested a copy of preliminary Layouts and Utility Plans reflecting the proposed improvements for each alternative. SC Engineering will provide by the end of the week. Target date for completion of the R/W Data Sheet is March 2010. SC Engr. Page 73 of 83 H g ; F . • 1 ; 'q 9 ~ ` 4 $ a 2 • d 8 ~ ' F _ d • i - Y E - i ~ ~ of & 5 e 4 f £ &i £ ~ ~ E E F $ Ea 2 € E +°a Pa e J 5 b~ ' ` L 3a a E'~ K E 2 a a a s ! S $ d § a 6 S € ~ S a 3 x s F a § s G - c c m s a s " o m ra ~ gq m O O gg § § N _ 8 ~ ff S g g s v - 5 Z S S ~ S g a 8 S & ~ S S S $ 8 S & 9 $ ~ 5 S ~ ~ S S ~ ~ § i ~ ~ ' 3 4 p 4 ? i ' fi 4 ~ f a @ ~ 3 6 § s g ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ a a W ~ e a W c w ~ , a a W 3 3 5 aSS o w 5~ ~ s e w Tq E E 9 n E i 'f E i ~ tl ~ ~ F ~ w E. d a d w 8 3 ~ ~ d d e x j E e ~ ~ ~ q C 8 ~ ~ S y 5q a _ a 8 ~ ~ o F o p ~ e .s s ~ a 3 ~ 8 ~ e ~ 3 ~ ~ & s ` t q fl Y z ~ ~ t ~ L 3 ~ P ~ p e 6 x E ~ w $ $ 3 e 5 ~ - e e £ T ~ ~ 8 2 s k g `e 2 Y L ~ 3 S R 3 a Page 74 of 83 I-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #35 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 0 Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 February 3, 2009 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑x Preliminary Total Project Cost > Alternative 2 - $48,000,000 > Alternative 3 - $55,000,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $31,000,000 Structures - $ 7,650,000 R/W - $ 10,000,000 (Pending R/W Data Sheet) Construction Cost - $48,650,000 Support Cost (Design. R(W. Construction) $ 6.350 000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $55,000,000 ❑X Geometric Approval Drawings(GADS) Package -Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Fact Sheets Approval - Status Update > Local Street Approval Letter- City of Lake Elsinore > Project Category Determination Letter - City of Lake Elsinore > Status Update - Caltrans Review/Approval ❑x Conceptual FHWA Submittal to Regional Office > Verify FHWA Receive - November 2009 D Engineering Studies/Reports > See Attached Deliverable Log 9 Environmental Technical Studies > See Attached Deliverable Log 2. Open Period/Discussion D Preliminary Drainage Report Requirements RAN Data Sheet - Needed by March 2010 > Preliminary Utility Plans - Submitted January 12, 2010 ❑x R/W Service Estimate (by Caltrans) Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement - Status Update ❑X Project Schedule - Update Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -March 3, 2010 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 75 of 83 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #36 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA.OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 March 3, 2010 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑x Preliminary Total Project Cost > Alternative 2 - $48,000,000 > Alternative 3 - $55,000,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - $31,000,000 Structures - $ 7,650,000 R/W - $ 10,000,000 (Pending R/W Data Sheet) Construction Cost - $48,650,000 Support Cost (Design. R/W. Construction) $ 6,350,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $55,000,000 ❑x Geometric Approval Drawings(GADs) Package - Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Fact Sheets Approval - Deliver to Caltrans - Status Update > Local Street Approval Letter - Deliver to Caltrans > Project Category Determination Letter- Delivered/Approved by Caltrans > Status Update - Caltrans Review/Approval ❑D Engineering Studies/Reports > See Attached Deliverable Log ❑D Environmental Technical Studies > See Attached Deliverable Log 2. Open Period/Discussion ❑D R/W Data Sheet- Needed by March 2010 > Status Update ❑x R/W Service Estimate (by Caltrans) ❑x Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement - Status Update ❑D Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -April 7, 2010 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 76 of 83 r e ate _ q = ' ' s.: _ 3 E _ y 2 5 l• s ; 3 g F p 55 ai S' S -~d t A S SH z g _ y _ t m;~ a g s a ~ - s $ v~ QG _ ~ ? ~ $ ~ ~ F S S 9 9 5 S. ' d 3 $ . . 3 $ $ a R S ' B S 3 b S 6 _ _ i r»= a P ~ § _ g g S S s g§ g& S ~ ~ fl N e $ S $ 3 P s s § S 5 3 3 & 3 3 s' 's s g s g ; _ 3 § 1 3 s' ~ ~ € _ s 4; .g ' a, a' a; ea 4~ g~ t aE£ @ € E ! Y i € ~ € ~ € 6 € € ° s5 5 5 s R 3a 5~ e9 za a ~a ~a 3e i Yw . MIT 3 Y ~n K"n ~ e ~ z ~ ~ g d s L $ 8 5 $ ` ~ F ~ a € s fr € { E s g~ S _ 9 ~ _ ~ e ~ W 3 ~ € a € ~ ~ a t}."^!~ E % £ 2 2 2 a £ § o 5 ~ E E a ~ ~ @ 3 ~ 5 d ~ £ ~ 2 d 3 9 $ 3 a 5~ S f £ - 3 £ ~ ~4u u 6 € 2 o E 3 w a 2 S Page 77 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 36 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange and Franklin Street Interchange Reconstruct interchange and New Interchange EA OA4400 SUBJECT: PDT Meeting No. 36 File: DATE OF MEETING: March 3,2010@ 1:30 PM LOCATION: Caltrans Conference Room 1227 ATTENDEES: NAME Jason Bennecke Mahmuda Akhter Eddie Castaneda Thomas Tu Roy King Sal Chavez Chris Del Ross-Risher Kelly Czechowski FIRM/DEPARTMENT Caltrans Project Management Caltrans Design Oversight Caltrans Environmental Oversight Caltrans Operations Caltrans Hydraulics SC Engineering LSA LSA cc: All Attendees All PDT Members Attachments: Agenda, Deliverable Log, and Sign-In Sheet 1-15/Railroad Cyn Rd TELEPHONE 909-556-8852 909-383-8345 909-383-4167 909-383-4277 909-383-4555 760-955-7712 951-781-9310 951-781-9310 Project File: 66 Project Items/Issues Preliminary Total Project Cost - Updating to be completed January 2010 SC Engineering reported that the total project cost for each Alternative will be updated due to the need to mitigate noise (sound walls), the anticipated R/W data sheet, and support costs. SC Engr Item Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Comments Roadway $30,000,000 $31,000,000 To be updated for Noise Barriers sound walls . Structures $8,000,000 $7,650,000 Right ofWa $4,300,000 $10,000,000 Pending R/W Data Sheet Construction Cost $42,300,000 $48,650,000 Support Cost (Design, R/W, Construction Management) $5,700,000 $6,350,000 To be updated based on revised cost. TOTAL PROJECT COST $48,000,000 $$55,000,000 Geometric Approval Drawings (GADS) Package - Alternative 3 Fact Sheets Approval: The Fact Sheets have been approved (signed) by the City of Lake Elsinore and have been delivered to Caltrans. Fact Sheets will be approved by Caltrans after the GADS are approved. Caltrans Local Street Approval Letter: The City's Local Street Approval Letter was delivered to Caltrans. Page 78 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 36 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA OA4400 March 3, 2010 Action Project Category Determination Letter: The Project Category Determination Letter has been submitted to and approved by Caltrans. GAD Approval Status: Caltrans reported that operations had comments on the Supplemental Traffic Memorandum for the GADS. SC Engineering will address comments and re-submit to Caltrans. It is anticipated that the GADs will be approved within 1 or 2 weeks, pending Caltrans concurrence on the Supplemental Traffic Memorandum. SC Engr. Engineering Studies/Reports - SC Engineering and/or Caltrans reported on the following: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA): Approved September 17, 2009. Geometric Approval Drawing Package: See above discussion. Storm Water Data Report-PANED: Approved December 7, 2009. Preliminary Geotechnical Report: Submitted to Caltrans on February 3, 2010. Anticipate comments by March 17, 2010. Caltrans Preliminary Material Report: Submitted to Caltrans on February 3, 2010. Anticipate Caltrans comments by March 17, 2010. Caltrans Pavement Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA): The anticipated submittal date is mid-April 2010. SC Engineering will wait until the 1s' review of the Preliminary Material Report and Geotechnical Design Report and concurrence of the Traffic Index (TI) for 20-year and 40- year design life. SC Engineering will submit the TI calculations for Caltrans concurrence. SC Engr. Preliminary Bridge Foundation Report: The anticipated submittal date is March 28, 2010. SC Engr. Bridge Advance Planning Studies (APS): The anticipated submittal date is March 28, 2010. SC Engr. Draft Project Report (DPR): Screen Check Copy was submitted to Caltrans Design Oversight on January 6, 2010. Caltrans has given approval for District Review. SC Engineering will wait until further engineering/environmental reports are completed. It anticipated that the DRP will be submitted mid to late mid March 2010. SC Engr. New Connection Report (NCR): A Screen Check Copy of the NCR is anticipated submittal date is mid March 2010. SC Engr. Engineering Studies/Reports - SC Engineering, LSA and/or Caltrans reported on the following: Location Hydraulic Study: The anticipated re-submittal is March 16, 2010. SC Engineering is performing a pre- and post- construction flooding analysis for Wash "D". SC Engr. Floodplain Evaluation Report: The anticipated submittal date is March 16, 2010. SC Engineering is performing a pre- and post-construction flooding analysis for Wash "D". SC Engr. Water Quality Assessment: Comments were received on February 19, 2010. Anticipated re-submittal to Caltrans is March 8, 2010. SC Engr. Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA): The ISA has been submitted to Caltrans on February 23, 2010. Caltrans Draft Relocation Impact Report: Submitted to Caltrans on November 4, 2010, waiting for comments from Caltrans Right of Way. Caltrans Environmental will follow-up on comments from Caltrans Right of Way. Caltrans Page 79 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 36 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA OA4400 March 3, 2010 Action 2. Community Impact Assessment: 1" draft submitted to Caltrans for review November 4, 2009, met with Caltrans and reviewed preliminary comments on November 24, 2009, secondary comments received on December 17, 2009, waiting on comments from Caltrans Right of Way. Caltrans Visual Impact Assessment: The Visual Impact Assessment was submitted to Caltrans on February 15, 2010. Caltrans Noise Impact Study and Noise Abatement Decision Report: The anticipated submittal date is March 22, 2010. Caltrans Air Quality Study and Conformity Analysis: The 2nd submittal was submitted to Caltrans on March 2, 2010. Paleontology Study: The Paleontology Study was submitted to Caltrans on February 8, 2010. Caltrans Jurisdictional Delineation: Submitted on February 8, 2010. Caltrans Natural Environmental Study (NES) and MSHCP Consistency Analysis: Submitted on February 8, 2010. Caltrans APE Map: Anticipate re-submitted to Caltrans on March 4, 2010. LSA Cultural Resources Studies (ASR/HRER/HPSR): Submittal delayed due to field work not yet performed pending City of Lake Elsinore obtaining rights of entry to private properties (requested 11/18/09). Per SC Engineering's email - right of entry letters were going to be sent out with the field review date from 3/22/10 - 412/10. LSA 1st Draft Environmental Document (IS/EA): The anticipated submittal date is May 14, 2010. 2nd Draft Environmental Document (IS/EA): The anticipated submittal date is August 19, 2010. Draft Environmental Document (IS/EA) for Circulation: The anticipated submittal date is October 21, 2010. Draft Reponses to Comments: The anticipated submittal date is January 31, 2011. Draft Final IS/EA and ND/FONSI: The anticipated submittal date is April 7, 2011. Environmental Commitments Record: The anticipated submittal date is April 21, 2011. Revised Final IS/EA and ND/FONSI: The anticipated submittal date is June 10, 2011. Draft Reponses to Comments: The anticipated submittal date is January 31, 2011. Open Period/Discussion RM Data Sheet: Caltrans has completed the R/W data sheet. Caltrans will forward the R/W data sheet to the City of Lake Elsinore. SC Engineering will incorporate into the Draft Project Report. Caltrans WIN Service Estimate: Caltrans has completed the R/W Service Estimate to prepare appraisals and perform acquisition services for the City of Lake Elsinore. Caltrans Project Management will review the R/W Services Estimate prior to submitting to the City of Lake Elsinore. Caltrans Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement (Design Cooperative Agreement): Caltrans and the City of Lake Elsinore will move forward in finalizing the amendment to the original Design Cooperative Agreement. Caltrans Project Management will follow up on the status. Caltrans Page 80 of 83 1-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Project PDT Meeting No. 36 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3/21.0 EA OA4400 March 3, 2010 RCM Open Discussion: The following items were discussed: Action TI Calculations: SC Engineering will forward the Ti Calculations to Caltrans for concurrence. SC Engr. 3. I Next Meeting - The next PDT Meeting is scheduled on March 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM at Caltrans Conference Room 1227. Page 81 of 83 1-15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Project Development Team (PDT) Meeting - #37 AGENDA 08-RIV-15- PM 16.3121.0 EA. OA4400 Caltrans Conference Room 1227 464 West 4" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 April 7, 2010 @ 1:30 PM 1. Project Items/Issues ❑D Preliminary Total Project Cost > Alternative 2 - $59,200,000 (Previous $48,000,000) > Alternative 3 - $68,500,000 (Locally Preferred Alternative) Roadway - Structures - WIN 31,000,000 (To Be Updated-Noise Barriers) $ 8,000,000 $19.720.000 (Previouv $10.000.000) Construction Cost - $58,720,000 Support Cost (6%-Design. 10%-RIW, 10%-Construction) - $ 8.280.000 (Previous $6.350.000) TOTAL PROJECT COST $67,000,000 (Previously $55,000,000) ❑x Geometric Approval Drawings(GADS) Package - Alternative 3 (Locally Preferred Alternative) > Status Update - Status Update D Engineering Studies/Reports > See Attached Deliverable Log D Environmental Technical Studies > See Attached Deliverable Log 2. Open Period/Discussion ❑x R/W Data Sheet - Received > Alternative 2 RIW Cost - $13,192,000 > Alternative 3 R/W Cost - $19,720,000 > Verify Utility Relocation Cost (Alternative 2 - $985,000; Alternative 3 - $3,179,000) Nx R/W Service Estimate (by Caltrans) Caltrans/City of Lake Elsinore Agreement - Status Update ❑D Open Discussion 3. Next Meeting -May 5, 2010 @ 1:30 PM @ Caltrans Conference Room 1227 Page 82 of 83 e _ e H _ E { - ~ ' 3 4 - e a F _ s : i ~ P f§ s 4 ~ a S £ e c . ' k c a ~C 3 - F i § n F 5 € 1 . 3 - e # e sE s Ufa a g k F f _ "s 4 a 3 S g e e e e as e ~ ~ 3 Y a- 3 S - ° 8 a S ~ S S $ S % Eo ~ ~ s s e a a § 3 ~ ~ ~ S s ~ & s ~ 9 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ s s $ c _ g j $ 3 p 5 p F g p g g ; 3 i d a s § ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ g S 8 3 3 _ v W ~ ~ e Y ~ d 2 S E a 8 ~ ° y E w F # € ~ _ p ii ~ ~ i p _ [ £ £ ~ a N S S 5 T y p ~ i £ ~ ~ q 5 s 8 E g _F E 9 ~ [ ~ p a ~ _2 ~ d ~ y v 6 A a $ ~ Y p Y ' ~ 6 8 6 b S 8 3 a 6 J > £ £ ~ ~ d ~ P E 6 E P S R S 3 g Page 83 of 83